9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to adoption, ownership of land, fraudulent sale deeds, applicability of legal provisions, res judicata principle, and interpretation of evidence. Adoption and Ownership of Land: The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of late Chhaya and Chhote Samaru, asserting ownership of the suit land. The defendant attempted to cultivate the land with ill intentions, leading to fraudulent sale deeds executed in favor of his sons. Both lower Courts found in favor of the plaintiff, establishing his adoption and rightful ownership of the land. The suit land was deemed as service land granted to Samaru, requiring permission from the Collector for any sale. Applicability of Legal Provisions: The appellant argued against the reliance on Section 33 of the Evidence Act and Section 165(7)(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Court clarified that Section 33 allows the use of earlier statements in subsequent proceedings if the parties are representatives of each other and the issues are substantially the same. Regarding Section 165(7)(b), the Court held that it prescribes a procedure and is retrospective, thus justifying the declaration of the sale deeds as illegal. Res Judicata Principle: The appellant contended that the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata since the plaintiff was a party in an earlier suit where no decree was passed in his favor. However, the Court found that the earlier suit did not address the ownership issue of the present plaintiff, and his rights accrued only after the death of Chhaya. As a result, the present suit was not barred by res judicata. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower Courts' decisions on the adoption, ownership of land, fraudulent sale deeds, and the inapplicability of res judicata. No substantial question of law was found for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
