HARI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's second appeal was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he has purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 15-6-1976 for a cash consideration of Rs. 5,000/- from Raghunandan Prasad, S/o Banwali Prasad, and came into possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that in March, 2000, he obtained the certified copy of Khasra Panchshala and B-1 for the year 1999-2000 on 30-3-2000 in which after the name of the plaintiff it was mentioned, "Sarvadhikar Radha Krishna Mandir, Prabandhak Collector, District Durg", whereas, it is not the property of any temple nor it is any trust's property by which the plaintiff filed an application under Section 57(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code') before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balod which was dismissed as withdrawn on 20-2-2001, thereafter, he filed application for correction of revenue records before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balod which was rejected on 17-4-2001 necessitating the filing of suit after serving notice under Section 80 of the CPC, for declaration of title and for further declaration that the Collector is not the manager / sarvadhikar of the suit land and the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and permanent injunction in which the defendants appeared and setup a plea that the disputed property is of the temple and the Collector's name has rightly been inserted in view of the order of the State Government dated 11-1-1988 (Ex.D-1C), as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record, by its judgment & decree held that the plaintiff is title holder and possession holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No.846, area 2.99 hectares, situated at Village Dewarbhat, Patwari Halka No.10, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg, but dismissed the suit holding that the court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 257(f) of the Code, as the revenue records can only be corrected by revenue court. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment & decree of the trial Court.