{"id":168451,"date":"2010-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-13T16:28:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T10:58:48","slug":"yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n                 Second Appeal No 376 of 2001\n\n\n              Yugal Prasad Dewangan\n                                    ...Petitioners\n\n                                         Versus\n\n                   1.  Smt.Kanakbati\n\n                    2.  Takeshwar    Prasad   Dewangan\n\n                    3.  Ku Bindu\n\n                    4.  Tomeshwar    Prasad   Dewangan\n\n                    5.  Ku   Neelmani  Dewangan\n\n                    6.  State  of Chhattisgarh  through\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n!            Mr Parag Kotecha counsel for the appellant\n\n^           Mr Prafull Bharat Mr Rakesh  Kumar  Jha,  Dy Govt Advocat\n\n            Honble Mr T P Sharma\n\n             Dated: 07\/09\/2010\n\n:                           JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          Second Appeal under Section 100 of  C P C<\/p>\n
1.    By  this Second Appeal, the appellant has challenged the
\n  legality  &  propriety  of  the judgment  and  decree  dated
\n  10.9.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bastar at
\n  Kanker, in Civil Appeal No.13-A\/96, affirming the judgment and
\n  decree of dismissal of the suit and decreeing the suit filed
\n  on  behalf of respondents No.1 to 5\/plaintiffs for partition
\n  and  separate possession dated 8.10.96 passed by  the  Civil
\n  Judge Class-II, Narayanpur, in Civil Suit No.4-A\/91.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The present appeal is admitted for consideration on  the
\n  following substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
       i)   Whether the Courts below have fallen into error by
\n          passing a decree regarding the validity of the deed of
\n          settlement dated 22.6.1971 (Ex.D-1) in the absence of any
\n          prayer made in the plaint or any issue having been framed in
\n          this regard?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       ii)  Whether the plaintiffs’ suit was barred by limitation?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.    As per pleadings of the parties i.e. respondents No.1 to
\n  5,  predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to  5  deceased
\n  Janak Prasad Dewangan and appellant Yugal Prasad Dewangan are
\n  sons of Neelkanth Dewangan.  Total 38.46 acres of the land was
\n  held by Neelkanth Dewangan situated at village Narayanpur. The
\n  property was ancestral property.  The present appellant  and
\n  Janak Prasad Dewangan (since deceased) were entitled for half
\n  of  the  share  of the property left by Neelkanth  Dewangan.
\n  Janak Prasad Dewangan was in Government service and was posted
\n  in  the  places  other than Narayanpur.  The  appellant  was
\n  residing with his father.  Father of the appellant had given
\n  12.59 acres of the land bearing khasra Nos. 2151, 2157, 569\/1,
\n  2251\/1 and 2259 to Janak Prasad Dewangan for agricultural only
\n  on  the ground that he is not in a position to cultivate the
\n  entire land or substantial part of the land.  Fourteenth years
\n  prior to filing of the suit dated 26.2.91, properties were not
\n  partitioned between both brothers.  Neelkanth Dewangan died in
\n  the  year 1983. During his life time, Neelkanth Dewangan has
\n  executed one document in the style of Vavasthapatra relating
\n  to 25.57 acres of the land in the name of the appellant which
\n  does not give any right and title to him.  No partition  was
\n  possible by the said Vavasthapatra.  The appellant succeeded
\n  and mutated his name in the revenue record relating to 25.41
\n  acres  of the land, but the same does not give any right  or
\n  title  to the appellant.  Cause of action arose in the  year
\n  1983 after death of his father when the appellant refused to
\n  give share to Janak Prasad Dewangan.  Then suit for partition
\n  and  possession  was filed on 26.2.1991. By  filing  written
\n  statement the present appellant denied adverse allegation made
\n  in  the  plaint  and  has specifically claimed  that  during
\n  lifetime of Neelkanth Dewangan vide registered Vavasthapatra
\n  dated 22.6.1971 has given 25.57 acres of the land to appellant
\n  out  of  31.46 acres of total land.  Properties  were  self-
\n  acquired of Neelkanth Dewangan and he was entitled to give the
\n  land to the appellant by Vavasthapatra. Name of the appellant
\n  was mutated in the revenue record and he is in possession over
\n  the land since 22.6.1971 despite the objection of Janak Prasad
\n  Dewangan.  Again in the year 1976 Janak Prasad Dewangan  has
\n  filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue
\n  record which was dismissed on account of compromise vide order
\n  dated  14.2.1977.   On the basis of averments  made  by  the
\n  parties, issues were framed and after providing opportunity of
\n  hearing  to  the  parties,  learned  Civil  Judge  Class-II,
\n  Narayanpur has decreed the suit and declared that Janak Prasad
\n  Dewangan is entitled for half of the share and possession over
\n  the entire property of 38.46 acres of the land recorded in the
\n  name of Neelkanth Dewangan. Same was challenged in the appeal.
\n  By the judgment and decree impugned, the lower appellate Court
\n  has dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.   I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
\n  judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the trial
\n  Court and records of the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
\n  in  the  present  case, respondents No.1 to  5  were  having
\n  definite knowledge of Vavasthapatra Ex.D\/1 which was executed
\n  by Neelkanth Dewangan on 22.6.1971, the present appellant is
\n  in  possession of the suit land since 22.6.1971 and his name
\n  was mutated in the revenue record in the year 1971 at the time
\n  of such mutation.  Predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to
\n  5  had  objected the mutation by filing objection Ex.D\/8  on
\n  15.10.71, but despite the objection of Janak Prasad Dewangan,
\n  name  of  the  appellant was mutated in the revenue  record.
\n  Again  in  the year 1977, Janak Prasad Dewangan applied  for
\n  mutation  before  the revenue authority  and  the  same  was
\n  dismissed vide order dated 14.2.77 on the basis of compromise
\n  (vkilh  lgefr) vide Ex.D\/10.  Learned counsel further argued
\n  that  as  per  documentary  and oral  evidence  the  present
\n  appellant  is in possession of the suit land since 22.6.1971
\n  i.e. from the date of execution of Vavasthapatra by father of
\n  the appellant Neelkanth Dewangan.  Property held by Neelkanth
\n  Dewangan was self acquired property and he was competent  to
\n  execute  Vavasthapatra or dispose of  his  property  in  any
\n  manner, even in an arbitrarily manner.  Vavasthapatra was well
\n  within the knowledge of Janak Prasad Dewangan. During the same
\n  time  12.59  acres  of the land was given  to  Janak  Prasad
\n  Dewangan and Janak Prasad Dewangan was in possession of that
\n  land given to him by his father and present respondents No.1
\n  to 5 are his predecessor-in-title.  Janak Prasad Dewangan had
\n  not challenged Vavasthapatra on the ground that same is forged
\n  document but they have pleaded in his plaint that the alleged
\n  Vavasthapatra does not give any right or title to the present
\n  appellant.  They have not claimed any relief for cancellation
\n  of Vavasthapatra or any relief relating to that Vavasthapatra.
\n  In  case  any  grievance  on account of  Vavasthapatra,  the
\n  plaintiffs  were  required to file suit for  declaration  or
\n  possession within three years from the date of execution  of
\n  Vavasthapatra dated 22.6.1971 or at the worst  within  three
\n  years from the death of Neelkanth Dewangan dated 24.11.1981,
\n  but  he  has not filed any suit within three years from  the
\n  aforesaid death and has filed the suit on 22.6.91 after lapse
\n  of 20 years from the date of execution of such Vavasthapatra
\n  and after 10 years from the death of his father.  The suit is
\n  hopelessly  barred  by limitation.  No  issues  were  framed
\n  relating  to validity of Vavasthapatra, therefore, any  suit
\n  relating to validity of Vavasthapatra, the Courts below were
\n  not competent to pass a decree regarding the validity of deed
\n  of settlement.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Learned  counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 submits  that
\n  respondent  No.1  to 5\/plaintiffs have specifically  pleaded
\n  relating to deed of settlement and pleaded that the same  is
\n  void  and does not give any title or right upon the  present
\n  appellant  and no specific claim or relief was necessary  to
\n  respondents No.1 to 5.  Even otherwise both the parties were
\n  having knowledge relating to their case. Both the parties have
\n  led their evidence and both the parties understood their case
\n  and for purpose of proving and contesting the case, therefore,
\n  absence of pleading in the plaint relating to validity of deed
\n  of settlement or absence of specific issue is of no use.  Suit
\n  for partition and possession of joint family property is  12
\n  years  from the cause of action arose.  In the present case,
\n  ouster or hostile possession has not been pleaded or proved by
\n  the appellant after death of his father.  When the appellant
\n  refused  to  give partition, then within 12  years  of  such
\n  refusal,  Janak Prasad Dewangan has filed suit for partition
\n  and possession which is within limitation in accordance with
\n  Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Learned  counsel placed reliance in the matter  of  Sree
\n  Swayam Prakash Ashramam and another v. G.Anandavally Amma and
\n  others1  in  which the Apex Court has held that  absence  of
\n  pleadings  in plaint regarding implied grant of  easementary
\n  right in relation to pathway concerned and passing of decree
\n  on  the basis of conclusion as to said implied grant is  not
\n  liable  to be interfered with as despite absence of specific
\n  issue, parties had understood their case and for purpose  of
\n  proving  and contesting implied grant, had adduced evidence.
\n  Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Bhuri
\n  Bai  and others v. Ramnarayan and others2 in which the  Apex
\n  Court  has held concurrent finding of both the Courts  below
\n  relating to allotment and possession of the property is pure
\n  questions  of  fact  and appreciation  of  evidence  and  no
\n  substantial question of law is involved.  Learned counsel also
\n  placed reliance in the matter of Sneh Gupta v. Devi Sarup and
\n  others<\/a>3 in which the Apex Court has held that a suit cannot be
\n  withdrawn by a party after it acquires a privilege and right
\n  to  withdraw a suit of the party bringing the suit would  be
\n  unqualified, if no right has been vested in any other party.\n<\/p>\n
8.    On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  respondent
\n  No.6\/State supported the judgment and decree impugned.\n<\/p>\n
9.    In  the  present  case, as per Ex.D\/1  alleged  deed  of
\n  settlement, the same was executed by father of the appellant
\n  in  the style of Vavasthapatra on 22.6.1971 by which it  has
\n  been  specifically mentioned that by the deed of settlement,
\n  the  appellant become owner and possessor of  the  land  and
\n  father of the appellant has devested from ownership upon the
\n  suit land.  Ex.D\/6 shows khata No.182 bearing 38.46 acres of
\nthe  land in the name of Neelkanth Dewangan in the year  1964-\n<\/p>\n
  65.   Exs.D\/8  and D\/9  objection filed on behalf  of  Janak
\n  Prasad Dewangan and reply filed by the appellant reveal that
\n  Janak  Prasad Dewangan has objected the mutation  proceeding
\n  before the Tahsildar for mutation of the land in the name of
\n  the appellant relating to aforesaid 25.57 acres of the land on
\n  the basis of Vavasthapatra on the ground that his father has
\n  without   any   advise  from  him  confidentially   executed
\n  Vavasthapatra in the name of the present appellant which was
\n  well relied by the appellant and finally name of the appellant
\n  was mutated in the revenue record.  In the year 1976-77, again
\n  Janak Prasad Dewangan has filed an application for mutation of
\n  his name but proceeding was dismissed on the ground that both
\n  the  parties do not want to prosecute and they have  decided
\n  their  dispute  amicably.  The proceeding was  dismissed  on
\n  14.2.77 vide Ex.D\/10.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Both the parties led their evidence.  Present respondents
\n  No.1  to  5  have examined Ku.Bindu Dewangan, Smt.Kanakvati,
\n  Surajram  Dewangan and Sayyad Nawab Ali who have deposed  in
\n  their evidence that 12.81 acres of the land was given to Janak
\n  Prasad Dewangan and the appellant has succeeded in execution
\n  of Vavasthapatra from his father. On the basis of documentary
\n  and  oral evidence, both the Courts below have arrived at  a
\n  finding  that  the property was self acquired  of  Neelkanth
\n  Dewangan. Learned Civil Judge Class-II, Narayanpur has arrived
\n  at  a finding relating to Vavasthapatra that three pieces of
\n  stamp  were purchased and out of three pieces of stamp,  one
\n  stamp was purchased in the name of Neelkanth and two pieces of
\n  stamp were purchased in the name of the appellant.  Para 8 of
\n  judgment of the trial Court further reveals that Ex.D\/1 is not
\n  registered document which is admittedly not proved.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Present respondents No.1 to 5 have not pleaded that  the
\n  alleged deed of settlement is not genuine and has obtained by
\n  fraud, they have not pleaded that it does not give any right
\n  or  title  to  the  appellant, they have  not  disputed  the
\n  genuineness of execution of the document but they have pleaded
\n  relating  to its effect.  They have not claimed  any  relief
\n  relating to cancellation or bindingness of the document upon
\n  them.  No specific issue has been framed by the trial Court or
\n  lower  appellate Court but issue No.2″B” was framed  by  the
\n  trial Court that whether the defendant i.e. present appellant
\n  is  entitled for + of the share upon the land given  to  the
\n  plaintiff  i.e. Janak Prasad Dewangan which  is  decided  as
\n  positive.\n<\/p>\n
12.   While dealing with the question of necessity of specific
\n  pleading  and  specific  issue  for  proving  the  fact  and
\n  contesting the claim, the Apex Court in the matter  of  Sree
\n  Swayam Prakash Ashramam and another (supra) has held that if
\n  the  parties  had understood their case and for  purpose  of
\n  proving  and contesting implied grant, had adduced evidence,
\n  absence of any specific issue is not required.  Paras 30 and
\n  31 of the said judgment read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “30.  The learned counsel for the appellant raised
\n          an argument that since no case was made out by the
\n          respondent -plaintiffs in their plaint  about  the
\n          easementary right over the B Schedule  pathway  by
\n          implied  grant,  no decree can be  passed  by  the
\n          courts  below basing their conclusion  on  implied
\n          grant.  We have already noted the findings arrived
\n          at   by  the  trial  court,  on  consideration  of
\n          pleadings and evidence on record on the  right  of
\n          easement over B Schedule pathway by implied grant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          31.  The  trial  Court  on  consideration  of  the
\n          evidence of both the parties recorded the  finding
\n          that  there was no evidence on record to show that
\n          either  Yogini  Amma or the defendants  themselves
\n          until 1982 had objected to the plaintiff’s use  of
\n          B  schedule pathway to access A schedule property.
\n          The   trial   court   on  consideration   of   the
\n          plaintiff’s  evidence and when the  defendant  had
\n          failed  to produce any evidence, had come  to  the
\n          conclusion that the plaintiff was given  right  of
\n          easement  by Yogini Amma as an easement of  grant.
\n          Considering  this  aspect of the matter,  although
\n          there  is  no  specific issue on the  question  of
\n          implied  grant, but as the parties have understood
\n          their  case  and  for the purpose of  proving  and
\n          contesting implied grant had adduced evidence, the
\n          trial  court  and the High Court had come  to  the
\n          conclusion that the plaintiff had acquired a right
\n          of  easement in respect of B schedule  pathway  by
\n          way of implied grant. Such being the position,  we
\n          are  not  in  a position to upset the findings  of
\n          fact  arrived at by the courts below, in  exercise
\n          of   our   powers  under  Article   136   of   the
\n          Constitution of India.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.   In  the  present  case, definitely  no  specific  relief
\n  relating to validity of deed of settlement has been claimed by
\n  the plaintiff, but both the parties have pleaded relating to
\n  existence\/non-existence and effect of Vavasthapatra  Ex.D\/1.
\n  As  per pleadings of respondents No.1 to 5, Ex.D\/1 does  not
\n  create  any  right  or  title upon the  appellant.   As  per
\n  pleadings of the appellant, right and title has been created
\n  upon him on the basis of the alleged deed of settlement.  In
\n  the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of
\n  Sree  Swayam  Prakash Ashramam and another  (supra),  it  is
\n  difficult  to hold that both the Courts below have committed
\n  illegality.  Inter alia, both the Courts below were competent
\n  to consider the validity of Ex.D\/1.\n<\/p>\n
14.   As  regards  the  question of validity of  Vavasthapatra
\n  Ex.D\/1,  respondents No.1 to 5 and their witnesses have  not
\n  adduced  any  evidence to show that Ex.D\/1 was  not  genuine
\n  document  or  has obtained by fraud. They have  pleaded  and
\n  adduced evidence that in the light of the fact that property
\n  was ancestral, father of the appellant was not competent  to
\n  execute such document, therefore, it does not give any right
\n  or  title  to the appellant. The trial Court has not  placed
\n  reliance upon the document on the ground that the same was not
\n  registered and three pieces of stamp have been purchased  by
\n  two  different  persons i.e. the appellant and  his  father,
\n  although the document is registered document and purchasing of
\n  stamp by one of the party or both the party is not sufficient
\n  to create doubt on the genuineness of the document, as held by
\n  both the Courts below.  Neelkanth Dewangan was absolute owner
\n  of  the property held by him, therefore, he was competent to
\n  dispose of or alienate the property to any person, even in an
\n  arbitrarily  manner.  Ex.D\/1 was executed by father  of  the
\n  appellant on 22.6.1971.  Execution of title on the basis  of
\n  Ex.D\/1 was objected by Janak Prasad Dewangan in the year 1971
\n  by filing objection Ex.D\/8 before the revenue authority during
\n  lifetime of his father and the same was rejected. Again Janak
\n  Prasad Dewangan filed mutation application before the revenue
\n  authority  during lifetime of his father and  the  same  was
\n  dismissed  on the basis of amicably settlement  between  the
\n  parties.\n<\/p>\n
15.   Definitely  as held by the Apex Court in the  matter  of
\n  Sneh Gupta (supra), parties are not entitled to withdraw the
\n  suit after execution of privilege or right.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Mutation  proceeding was initiated at  the  instance  of
\n  Janak Prasad Dewangan and the same was withdrawn by both the
\n  parties on the basis of amicable settlement.   Virtually the
\n  proceeding was dismissed on the basis of amicable settlement
\n  that  they  do not want to prosecute the proceeding  and  no
\n  parties  has gained any profit or privilege at the  time  of
\n  termination of such mutation proceeding on behalf of the Janak
\n  Prasad Dewangan (since deceased).\n<\/p>\n
17.   As held by the Apex Court in the matter of Bhuri Bai and
\n  others (supra), allotment of the property to the appellant in
\n  partition and he was never in possession is pure question of
\n  fact and appreciation of evidence and no substantial question
\n  of law is involved.\n<\/p>\n
18.   In  the  present case, as per pleadings and evidence  of
\n  both the parties, deed of settlement was executed by father of
\n  the  appellant  Neelkanth Dewangan and name of  the  present
\n  appellant was mutated on the basis of such deed.  The present
\n  appellant is in possession of the land given to him  on  the
\n  basis of such deed.  About 12.59 acres of the land were given
\n  simultaneously to predecessor-in-title of respondents No.1 to
\n  5  and they are in possession of such land.  Acquisition  of
\n  title on the basis of deed of settlement was objected by Janak
\n  Prasad Dewangan in the year 1971 and in the year 1977 during
\n  lifetime of his father but he did not succeed in his claim.\n<\/p>\n
19.   In the present case, land was given to the appellant  on
\n  the basis of deed of settlement and he is in possession of the
\n  land on the basis of such document.  Definitely the same  is
\n  pure question of fact and not substantial question of law, but
\n  in  the  present  case, the trial Court has disbelieved  the
\n  document Ex.D\/1 deed of settlement that same is not registered
\n  document required registration under the Indian Registration
\n  Act.   As  per  Ex.D\/1,  same is registered  document.   The
\n  respondents  have not pleaded and proved that  document  was
\n  forged or not genuine.  In the absence of such pleading  and
\n  evidence, finding of the Courts below that document  is  not
\n  legal  is  complete  perverse finding against  pleading  and
\n  evidence.   In  these circumstances, such  question  becomes
\n  substantial question of law.  As per pleading and evidence of
\n  the parties, Ex.D\/1 was duly executed by father of and it was
\n  objected twice by Janak Prasad Dewangan during lifetime of his
\n  father before the revenue Court.  Property was self-acquired
\n  property  of  Neelkanth  Dewangan, father  of  Janak  Prasad
\n  Dewangan and was competent to dispose of the property by way
\n  of deed of settlement or other way.\n<\/p>\n
20.   As  regards  the question of limitation, definitely  the
\n  alleged deed of settlement Ex.D\/1 executed on 22.7.1971  was
\n  within the knowledge of Janak Prasad Dewangan and in the year
\n  1971 he has filed objection before the revenue authority and
\n  in  the  year 1977 same was dismissed.  Again he  has  filed
\n  mutation  proceeding  and same was  also  dropped.   As  per
\n  pleadings of Janak Prasad Dewanwan, his father died  in  the
\n  year 1983, but as per pleadings of the appellant, his father
\n  died  on  24.11.1981.  Unless deed of settlement is declared
\n  null  and void or inoperative, Janak Prasad Dewangan is  not
\n  entitled for possession over self-acquired property held  by
\n  his  father during his lifetime or after his death.  He  was
\n  required to file suit for declaration of the document null and
\n  void and for possession within three years from the date  of
\n  execution of the document or denial of his claim by  revenue
\n  authority or death of his father when actual cause of action
\n  relating to partition arose in his favour in accordance with
\n  Article  58 of the Limitation Act, but Janak Prasad Dewangan
\n  has  not filed any suit within three years from the date  of
\n  execution  of the document, date of denial of his  claim  by
\n  revenue  authority or death of his father.  Therefore,  suit
\n  filed on behalf of Janak Prasad Dewangan was hopelessly barred
\n  by  limitation.   Suit  was simplicitor  for  partition  and
\n  possession, especially in the light of the alleged  deed  of
\n  settlement which was not found genuine as per finding of the
\n  Courts below.  In these circumstances, Janak Prasad Dewangan
\n  was under obligation to file suit for declaration of deed of
\n  settlement  not binding upon him.  In case it is  considered
\n  that they have made sufficient averment in the pleadings and
\n  they  understood  their  claim and  have  adduced  evidence,
\n  therefore, specific plea and issue was not necessary to them.
\n  In these circumstances, limitation available to Janak Prasad
\n  Dewangan was 3 years under Article 58 of the Limitation  Act
\n  and  not  12  years under Article 65 of the Limitation  Act,
\n  therefore, suit was hopelessly barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
21.   For the foregoing reasons, substantial question No.1  is
\n  decided  that on the basis of detailed pleadings and cryptic
\n  issue, the Courts below have not fallen into error regarding
\n  the finding on validity of the deed of settlement Ex.D\/1 but
\n  have committed error in arriving at a finding that the deed of
\n  settlement  Ex.D\/1 was null and void, inter alia  Ex.D\/1  is
\n  valid document executed by Neelkanth Dewangan in favour of the
\n  appellant, for which he was competent to execute the same and
\n  substantial  question No.2 is decided as positive.   On  the
\n  basis of aforesaid decision on the substantial questions  of
\n  law formulated for the decision of this appeal, the appeal is
\n  allowed.  Judgment and decree of the Courts below are hereby
\n  set  aside.   Suit filed on behalf of Janak Prasad  Dewangan
\n  (since deceased) continued by respondents No.1 to 5 are liable
\n  to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.  Parties shall bear
\n  their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
22.  Advocate fee as per schedule.\n<\/p>\n
23.  A decree be drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No 376 of 2001 Yugal Prasad Dewangan …Petitioners Versus 1. Smt.Kanakbati 2. Takeshwar Prasad Dewangan 3. Ku Bindu 4. Tomeshwar Prasad Dewangan 5. Ku Neelmani Dewangan 6. State of Chhattisgarh through …Respondents ! Mr Parag […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3683,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010"},"wordCount":3683,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010","name":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-13T10:58:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yugal-prasad-dewangan-vs-smt-kanakbati-on-7-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yugal Prasad Dewangan vs Smt.Kanakbati on 7 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=168451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}