{"id":30117,"date":"2010-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-13T13:17:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T07:47:48","slug":"smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n              HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n                  Second Appeal No 331 of 1993\n\n                   1  Smt Nanbutia\n                    2  Laxmi\n                                   ...Petitioners\n\n                                       Versus\n                 1  Smt  Manglinbai\n\n                  2  Shyamlal\n\n                  3  Jagdish\n                              ...Respondents\n\n!                  Mr H S Patel\n\n^                  Mr R S Patel\n\n                   Honble Mr T P Sharma\n\n          Dated: 14\/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 26.4.1993
\n  passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Appeal No.22A\/92,
\n  dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated
\n  3.3.1992 and decreeing the suit passed by the Third Civil Judge
\n  Class-II, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No.60A\/87.\n<\/p>\n
2.     The   present   second  appeal  has  been   admitted   for
\n  consideration on the following substantial question of law:-
\n     “Whether  the suit is barred by Section 257 clause  (l)
\n     of the M.P. land Revenue Code, 1959 ?”\n<\/p>\n
3.    As  per  pleadings  of  the parties,  on  18.2.72  original
\n  plaintiff   Hariram  predecessor-in-title  of  the  respondents
\n  purchased  agricultural land bearing khasra No.171  area  1.955
\n  hectares  and  khasra No.31\/2 area 0.50 hectare and  came  into
\n  possession  from Chitki predecessor-in-title of the appellants.
\n  Chitki filed an application under Section 170-B of the C.G. Land
\n  Revenue Code, 1959 (for short `the Code’) for declaration of the
\n  alleged  transactions as null and void.  Same was  allowed  and
\n  transactions  were  declared null and  void  vide  order  dated
\n  10.1.1983  in Revenue Case No.35\/A-23\/81-82.  Alleged purchaser
\n  Hariram  has challenged the order by filing civil suit and  has
\n  also  claimed declaration of title.  Original respondent Chitki
\n  and after death of Chitki, the present appellants have contested
\n  the  case and by filing written statement, they have denied the
\n  claim  of  the plaintiff and alleged that civil suit is  barred
\n  under  the  provisions of Section 257 (l) of the  Code.   After
\n  providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned  Third
\n  Civil  Judge  Class-II, Raigarh decreed the  suit  against  the
\n  present  appellants.   Same  was challenged  before  the  lower
\n  appellate  Court and learned lower Appellate Court by affirming
\n  the judgment and decree 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  admittedly Chitki was a member of aboriginal tribe and in case of
\n  sale by aboriginal tribe of his land, purchaser was required to
\n  notify  his  possession  over the  property,  but  the  present
\n  purchaser\/plaintiff had not notified his possession.  Thereafter
\n  proceeding  under Section 170-B of the Code was  initiated  and
\n  finally transaction was declared null and void by the competent
\n  authority.   The  order was challengeable  before  the  revenue
\n  authority in appeal or revision but original plaintiff  Hariram
\n  has filed civil suit against the decision under Section 170-B of
\n  the Code.  Learned counsel further argued that in the light  of
\n  bar created under Section 257 (l) of the Code, the suit was not
\n  maintainable and the Court below has illegally decreed the suit
\n  and thereby committed illegality.\n<\/p>\n
6.    On  the  other  hand, learned counsel for  the  respondents
\n  supported the judgment and decree impugned and argued that  the
\n  fact is not disputed that Chitki  was  a  member  of  aboriginal
\n  tribe.   Original   plaintiff  Hariram   has  not  notified  his
\n  possession  over  the  property  to  the  competent  authority.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Proceeding was initiated under Section 170-B of the  Code
\n  which was allowed and the alleged transaction was declared void.
\n  Learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff has challenged
\n  the  legality  and  propriety of the decision  of  the  revenue
\n  authority before the Civil Court.  Section 170-B of the Code was
\n  amended  vide  Act  15  of  1980 which  came  into  force  from
\n  24.10.1980.   Subsequently, clause (1) of  sub-section  (2)  of
\n  Section 170-B of the Code was amended vide Amendment Act No. 1 of
\n  1988 which came into force from 5.1.1988.  As per clause (l) of
\n  Section 257 of the Code, civil suit relating to proceeding under
\n  Section 170-A of the Code was barred and the aforesaid provisions
\n  was  amended  by amending Act No.18 of 1984.  The provision  of
\n  clause (l-1) was inserted by Act No.38 of 1995 which came  into
\n  force from 15.12.1995. On the date of alleged transaction of sale
\n  viz.,  on  18.2.1972 clause (l-1) was not in force,  therefore,
\n  transaction  relating  to that day was  not  barred  under  the
\n  provisions of Section 257 (l-1) of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
8.    In  the present case, only one substantial question of  law
\n  has been formulated for consideration whether the suit is barred
\n  by  Section 257 clause (l) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code  1959.
\n  The  provisions of Section 170-B of the Code have been inserted
\n  vide  Act  of 15 of 1980 w.e.f. 10.10.1980.  The provision  was
\n  further  amended the word within one year and was  subsequently
\n  amended and substituted by the words within two years vide  Act
\n  No.38 of 1995 which came into force from 9.12.1995.  Section 257
\n  was amended and clause (l-1) was added as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
          “(l-1) any matter covered under Section 170-B.”\n<\/p>\n
9.    Definitely,  amendment  of  Section  257  of  the  Code  by
\n  inserting new clause     (l-1) which came into force on 9.12.1995
\n  was not retrospective and was not applicable and available to the
\n  parties on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 6.4.1983, but
\n  the  provisions of Section 170-B of the Code was  in  force  on
\n  6.4.1983 on the date of filing of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
10.   As per pleadings of the original plaintiff, order passed by
\n  the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of the Code casts
\n  cloud  over his title, therefore, he has filed civil  suit  for
\n  declaration  of  such order as null and void and  also  claimed
\n  relief  for  declaration of such order null and  void  and  for
\n  declaration of title on the basis of alleged sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
11.   As per pleadings of the parties, sale deed was executed  on
\n  18.2.1972 by a person member of aboriginal tribe.  The provision
\n  of Section 170-B of the Code is existing till today which reads
\n  as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “170-B.  Reversion of land of members of aboriginal
\n       tribe  which was transferred by fraud.-(1) Every  person
\n       who on the date of commencement of the Chhattisgarh Land
\n       Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred
\n       to  as  the  Amendment Act of 1980) is in possession  of
\n       agricultural land which belonged to a member of a  tribe
\n       which  has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under
\n       sub-section  (6)  of  section  165  between  the  period
\n       commencing on the 2nd October, 1959 and endings  on  the
\n       date  of the commencement of Amendment Act, 1980  shall,
\n       within two years of such commencement, notify to the Sub-
\n       Divisional  Officer in such form and in such  manner  as
\n       may  be prescribed, all the information as to how he has
\n       come in possession of such land.<\/p>\n
            (2)  If  any person falls to notify the information
\n       as   required  by  sub-section  (1)  within  the  period
\n       specified therein it shall be presumed that such  person
\n       has  been in possession of the agricultural land without
\n       any lawful authority and the agricultural land shall, on
\n       the  expiration of the period aforesaid  revert  to  the
\n       person to whom it originally belonged and if that person
\n       be dead, to his legal heirs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2-A)  If  a  Gram  Sabha  in  the  Scheduled  area
\n       referred  to  in  clause  (1)  of  Article  244  of  the
\n       Constitution finds that any person, other than a  member
\n       of  an aboriginal tribe, is in possession of any land of
\n       a  Bhumiswami belonging to an aboriginal tribe,  without
\n       any lawful authority, it shall restore the possession of
\n       such land to that persons to whom it originally belonged
\n       and if that person is dead to his legal heirs:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Provided  that if the Gram Sabha fails  to  restore
\n       the  possession of such land, it shall refer the  matter
\n       to  the  Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall  restore  the
\n       possession  of  such land within three months  from  the
\n       date of receipt of the reference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (3)  On receipt of the information under sub-
\n       section (1), the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make  such
\n       enquiry  as  may  be  deemed necessary  about  all  such
\n       transactions of transfer and if he finds that the member
\n       of aboriginal tribe has been defrauded of his legitimate
\n       right he shall declare the transaction null and void and
\n       pass  an  order revesting the agricultural land  in  the
\n       transferor and, if he is dead, in his legal heirs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            [(3)  On  receipt  of  the information  under  sub-
\n       section  (1) the Sub-Divisional Officer shall make  such
\n       enquiry  as may be necessary about all such transactions
\n       of   transfer  and  if  he  finds  that  the  member  of
\n       aboriginal  tribe has been defrauded of  his  legitimate
\n       right he shall declare the transaction null and void and-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) Where no building or structure has been erected
\n               on  the  agricultural land prior to such finding
\n               pass an order revesting the agricultural land in
\n               the  transferor and if he be dead, in his  legal
\n               heirs,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)  Where  any  building  or  structure  has  been
\n               erected  on the agricultural land prior to  such
\n               finding, he shall fix the price of such land  in
\n               accordance  with the principles  laid  down  for
\n               fixation   of   price  of  land  in   the   Land
\n               Acquisition Act, 1894 (No.I of 1894)  and  order
\n               the person referred to in sub-section (1) to pay
\n               to   the  transferor  the  difference,  if  any,
\n               between  the  price  so  fixed  and  the   price
\n               actually paid to the transferor:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            Provided  that where the building or structure  has
\n       been  erected  after the 1st day of  January,  1984  the
\n       provisions of clause (b) above shall not apply:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Provided  further  that  fixation  of  price  under
\n       clause  (b)  shall be with reference  to  the  price  of
\n       registration  of  the  case  before  the  Sub-Divisional
\n       Officer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.   As per provisions of Section 170-B of the Code, in case any
\n  transaction  between the period commencing on the 2nd  October,
\n  1959 and ending on the date of the commencement of the Act, 1980
\n  i.e. on 10.10.1980, a person in possession of agricultural land
\n  belonged to a member of tribe which has been declared to be  an
\n  aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Code
\n  is  required to notify his possession to Sub Divisional Officer
\n  that  how he has come in possession of such land, failing such,
\n  Sub Divisional Officer shall presume that such person has been in
\n  possession of the agricultural land without any lawful authority
\n  and the agricultural land shall, on the expiration of the period
\n  aforesaid revert to the person to whom it originally belonged and
\n  if  that person be dead, to his legal heirs. Specific procedure
\n  has been prescribed under Section 170-B of the Code and a person
\n  not  a member of Scheduled Tribe if he was in possession of the
\n  agricultural land originally belonged to a member of tribe  was
\n  under obligation to notify such possession to the Sub Divisional
\n  Officer.\n<\/p>\n
13.   In the present case, admittedly original plaintiff has  not
\n  notified his possession to the Sub Divisional Officer.  Inquiry
\n  was made by the Sub Divisional Officer in Revenue Case No.35\/A-
\n  23\/81-82  and  proceeding was quashed  by  the  Sub  Divisional
\n  Officer.  Order passed under the provisions of Section 170-B of
\n  the Code was appealable and Second Appeal was barred in terms of
\n  Section 170-B of the Code, but still revision against the order
\n  passed  by  the  first appellate Court was  maintainable  under
\n  Section  50  of  the  Code.  It shows  complete  procedure  and
\n  opportunity for inquiry, investigation and opportunity of hearing
\n  to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Definitely, clause (l-1) of Section 257 of the Code relating
\n  to bar for exercising jurisdiction by Civil Court is created vide
\n  Act No.38 of 1995 which came into force from 9.12.1995, but the
\n  provisions of Section 50 of the Code was in force on the date of
\n  transaction, date of filing civil suit and date of possession by
\n  the  Civil  Court.   Section 257 of the Code  creates  bar  for
\n  entertaining  suit by the Civil Court relating to  the  matters
\n  which  the  State Government, Board or any Revenue  Officer  is
\n  empowered to determine, decide or dispose of the matters  under
\n  the Code and also create bar relating to the matters included in
\n  clause (a) to (z-2) appended in Section 257 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
15.   While  dealing  with the exclusion of jurisdiction  of  the
\n  civil Courts by any institute, the Supreme Court in the matter of
\n  State  of  A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (Dead) by LRs.  and
\n  others1  held that the normal rule of law is that civil  courts
\n  have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those
\n  of  which  cognisance  by  them either expressly  or  impliedly
\n  excluded as provided under Section 9 CPC but such exclusion  is
\n  not readily referred and the presumption to be drawn must be in
\n  favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of
\n  the  civil  courts to try a civil suit.  The  test  adopted  in
\n  examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent
\n  to  exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication,  and\n<\/p>\n
  (ii) whether the stature in question provides for adequate  and
\n  satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order
\n  made under it.  Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “5.  The normal rule of law is that civil courts  have
\n       jurisdiction  to try all suits of civil nature  except
\n       those of which cognisance by them either expressly  or
\n       impliedly  excluded as provided under  Section  9  CPC
\n       but  such  exclusion is not readily referred  and  the
\n       presumption  to  be drawn must be  in  favour  of  the
\n       existence  rather  than exclusion of  jurisdiction  of
\n       the  civil  courts  to  try a civil  suit.   The  test
\n       adopted  in  examining such a question is (i)  whether
\n       the  legislative  intent to exclude arises  explicitly
\n       or  by  necessary  implication, and (ii)  whether  the
\n       stature   in   question  provides  for  adequate   and
\n       satisfactory  alternative remedy to a party  aggrieved
\n       by  an order made under it.  In Dhulabhai v. State  of
\n       M.P.2  it  was  noticed  that where  a  stature  gives
\n       finality  to  the  orders  of the  Special  Tribunals,
\n       jurisdiction of the civil courts must be  held  to  be
\n       excluded  if there is adequate remedy to do  what  the
\n       civil  courts  would normally do in a  suit  and  such
\n       provision,  however,  does  not  exclude  these  cases
\n       where  the provisions of the particular Act  have  not
\n       been  complied with or the statutory tribunal has  not
\n       acted  in  conformity with the fundamental  principles
\n       of judicial procedure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.   While  dealing  with the exclusion of jurisdiction  of  the
\n  Civil Court relating to the matters appealable under Section 170-
\n  B of the Code, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of
\nDhumaniya v. Harisingh and others3 held that the suit against the
\n  order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 170-B of
\n  the Code cannot be decided on merits of the matter.  Civil Curt
\n  has  to see whether an inquiry was conducted as provided  under
\n  Section 170-B of the Code or not.  While placing reliance in the
\n  matter  of  Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (Dead) by LRs. and  others
\n  (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that Civil Court
\n  has  no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits but has  only
\n  jurisdiction to see whether an inquiry was conducted as provided
\n  under Section 170-B of the Code or not.\n<\/p>\n
17.  While dealing with the question of exclusion of jurisdiction
\n  in case of matters triable by Revenue Court, a Division Bench of
\n  the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Nathuram Arjun
\n  v. Siyasharan Harprasad4 held that in case private right of way
\n  of  cultivator through the field of another for access  to  his
\n  field, the  revenue Courts are having exclusive jurisdiction to
\n  decide the matter and decision of revenue authorities under this
\n  section  is exclusive and suit to enforce the common law  right
\n  i.e., under Easements Act, does not lia.\n<\/p>\n
18.  While dealing with the question of exclusion of jurisdiction
\n  of  the  Civil Court, the Supreme Court in the matter  of  K.S.
\n  Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras5 held that if  a
\n  statute  imposes a liability and creates an effective machinery
\n  for deciding questions of law or fact arising in regard to that
\n  liability,   it   may,  by  necessary  implication,   bar   the
\n  maintainability of a civil suit in respect of the said liability.
\n  A  stature  may  also  confer  exclusive  jurisdiction  on  the
\n  authorities constituting the said machinery to decide finally a
\n  jurisdictional fact thereby excluding by necessary  implication
\n  the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
19.   While dealing with the same question, the Supreme Court  in
\n  the matter of State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons6<\/a> held
\n  that  after referring to earlier cases, the view was reiterated
\n  that  where  the  legislature sets up  a  special  tribunal  to
\n  determine questions relating to rights or liabilities which are
\n  the  creation of a statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
\n  would be deemed excluded by implication.\n<\/p>\n
20.  In the light of legal propositions enumerated in the matters
\n  of  Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (Dead) by LRs. and others1(supra),
\n  Nathuram Arjun4(supra), K.S. Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd.5(supra)
\n  and   N.  Ramaswami  Iyer  and  Sons6  (supra),  exclusion   of
\n  jurisdiction of the civil Court is not readily to be  inferred.
\n  The Courts are required to examine the provisions of law namely,\n<\/p>\n
(i)  whether it explicitly or by necessary implication intent  to
\n  exclude  the jurisdiction of the civil Court and (ii) does  the
\n  statute  provide  adequate remedy in case of grievance  against
\n  order made under the statute.\n<\/p>\n
21.   Section  170-B of the Code provides procedure  for  inquiry
\n  relating to transaction hit by Section 170-B of the Code.  Order
\n  made under Section   170-B of the Code is appealable under  the
\n  provisions of Section 44 of the Code.  Second appeal against such
\n  order  is barred, but revision against the order passed by  the
\n  first appellate Court is maintainable in accordance with Section
\n  50 of the Code which shows that legislature has taken proper care
\n  and has provided adequate remedy in case of grievance against the
\n  order made under Section 170-B of the Code.  Section 170-A of the
\n  Code  deals  with  transaction relating  to  the  land  between
\n  aboriginal tribe and the person not belonging to aboriginal tribe
\n  and competent authority is competent to pass the order for return
\n  of  the  land  and restore the possession after  making  detail
\n  inquiry.  In continuance of procedure prescribed under  Section
\n  170-A of the Code, additional procedure\/remedy has been provided
\n  under  Section 170-B of the Code.  As per clause (l) of Section
\n  257  of  the  Code, jurisdiction of the civil Court  is  barred
\n  relating to the matter covered under Section 170-B of the Code,
\n  although in the year 1995 by amending Act No.38 of 1995 bar has
\n  been created relating to Section 170-B of the Code. Section 257
\n  of  the  Code  is  in two parts.  Principle provisions  exclude
\n  jurisdiction of the civil Court relating to the matter triable by
\n  the  revenue officers and authorities under the Code and clause\n<\/p>\n
  (a)  to  (z-2) appended in Section 257 of the Code,  especially
\n  creates bar in exercising the jurisdiction by the civil  Court.
\n  The section confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Revenue Courts
\n  in respect of certain matters as enumerated in this section. The
\n  section  is  drafted in a peculiar manner.  It  keeps  in  tact
\n  jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of following:-\n<\/p>\n
          (i)  Where jurisdiction is either conferred on civil court or it
\n            is stated that a civil suit will be competent in respect of
\n            certain matter; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii) Where jurisdiction is conferred on civil Court under any
\nother provision of law specifically in respect of certain matter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  Under this section, jurisdiction of civil Court is excluded  in
\n  respect of the following:-\n<\/p>\n
          (i)  such matters which the State Government, the Board or any
\n            Revenue Officer is competent to decide under the provisions of
\n            this Code; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii) matters which are enumerated in clauses (a) to (z-2) of this
\nSection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  Clause  (l)  of  Section 257 read with principle  provision  of
\n  Section  257  of  the  Code  creates  bar  in  exercising   the
\n  jurisdiction of the civil Court relating to the matter  covered
\n  under Section 170-B of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Although  clause (l-1) of Section 257 of the Code  was  not
\n  amended or inserted before 1995, but principle of Section 257 of
\n  the Code was in force on the date of transaction, date of filing
\n  of suit and date of possession by the Civil Court which creates
\n  bar  in  exercising the jurisdiction by the Civil Court in  the
\n  matter in which the State Government, Board or Revenue Officers
\n  is  by the Court empowered to determine, decide and dispose of.
\n  The  Revenue  Officers are empowered to determine,  decide  and
\n  dispose  of the matters relating to Section 170-B of the  Code,
\n  especially  relating  to  transaction between  the  periods  of
\n  2.10.1959  till  10.10.1980.  The Sub  Divisional  Officer  has
\n  decided the case in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
\n  While  decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal,  both  the
\n  Courts below have not considered the provisions of Sections 170,
\n  170-A and principle provisions of Section 170-B of the Code and
\n  have decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal only on the ground
\n  that Section 170-B of the Code does not create bar in exercising
\n  the jurisdiction of the civil Court, but have not considered the
\n  main  clause of Section 257 of the Code and complete  procedure
\n  provided  under  Section 170-B of the Code,  thereby  committed
\n  illegality.\n<\/p>\n
23.   Consequently,  substantial question of law  formulated  for
\n  decision of the appeal is decided as positive.  On the basis of
\n  decision on the substantial question of law formulated for  the
\n  decision  of  the appeal, the appeal is allowed.  Judgment  and
\n  decree   of  both  the  Courts  below  are  hereby  set  aside.
\n  Considering the peculiar facts that instead of filing the appeal
\n  and  revision provided under the Code, the present  respondents
\n  have filed civil suit, they may challenge the order passed by the
\n  Sub Divisional Officer before appellate or revisional forum and
\n  if appeal or revision is filed, then delay in filing such appeal
\n  or revision may be considered in the light of pendency of civil
\n  suit and civil appeal.  Parties shall bear their own cost.\n<\/p>\n
24.  Advocate fee as per schedule.\n<\/p>\n
25.  A decree be drawn accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No 331 of 1993 1 Smt Nanbutia 2 Laxmi …Petitioners Versus 1 Smt Manglinbai 2 Shyamlal 3 Jagdish …Respondents ! Mr H S Patel ^ Mr R S Patel Honble Mr T P Sharma Dated: […]<\/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-30117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 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\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-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=\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-13T07:47:48+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T07:47:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3566,\"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\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-13T07:47:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 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":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 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\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-13T07:47:48+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T07:47:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010"},"wordCount":3566,"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\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010","name":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-13T07:47:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nanbutia-vs-3-jagdish-on-14-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Nanbutia vs 3 Jagdish on 14 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\/30117","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=30117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}