Chattisgarh High Court
Vinod Kumar Patel vs Smt.Gulabi Devi And Others 38 ... on 2 March, 2020
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 47 of 2009
Vinod Kumar Patel, S/o Late Rupsai Patel, Aged
about 27 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o
Village Shivpur Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur,
Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.
Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Gulabi Devi W/o Late Ramavtar, Aged about 52
years.
2. Premchand S/o Late Ramavtar, Aged about 32 years.
Both R/o Village Beliya, Tahsil Sonhat, Distt.
Korea, Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. Nanki Bai W/o Late Rupsai, Aged about 52
years, R/o Village Shivpur Charcha, Tahsil
Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.
4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Korea,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant : Mr. Shaktiraj Sinha, Advocate For State : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 02/03/2020
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree by which 2 trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff finding no merit.
2. Mr. Shaktiraj Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the Courts below have committed illegality in holding that plaitiff's suit is hit by res judicata. He would further submit that plaintiff has also undivided interest in the suit property, therefore, dismissal of the earlier suit filed by his father would not operate as res judicata in the suit filed by the plaintiff/son, as such, the appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial question of law in this regard.
3. Plaintiff's father namely Rupsai Patel filed a suit for recovery of possession based on title against defendant No. 1's husband and defendant No. 2's father namely Ramavtar which was dismissed on 12/12/1980 (Ex. D/1) holding that though plaintiff's father purchased the suit property by sale deed dated 14/05/1965 but defendants' predecessor in title Ramavtar, being in possession of the suit property, has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The decree passed in the earlier suit has not been challenged by the plaintiff in the instant suit 3 and both the Courts below have held that the decree would operate as res judicata as the plaintiff is claiming the suit property through his father, parties are same as the earlier suit and the subject matter is also identical to that of the earlier suit, therefore, plaintiff's suit is hit by the principle of res judicata.
4. The said finding recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff's suit is hit by the principle of res judicata is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and does not involve any substantial question of law in this regard.
5. The second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Harneet