(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment and decree dtd. 14/5/2003 passed by First Additional District Judge, Surguja in Civil Appeal No.12-A/1999 reversing judgment and decree of the Trial Court and allowing the plaintiff's suit and granting decree in his favour by declaring sale deed dtd. 23/6/1976 valid only to the extent of 3.73 decimal and sale deed dtd. 20/8/1985 valid only to the extent of 3.73 decimal along with other ancillary relief.
(2.) The second appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law :
(3.) Chamru Ram predecessor-in-title of respondent filed suit against Ram Autar, Mahesh Lal and Sushila Devi for declaration on the pleadings that the property in dispute was the joint family property of plaintiff-Chamru Ram and defendant No. 2/Mahesh Lal, which was later on, partitioned. Defendant No.2 was allotted his share to the extent of 30.33 decimal, whereas, the plaintiff along with his mother were together allotted 60.67 decimal. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 2/ Mahesh Lal sold a parcel of land of his share on 29/1/1976 and on 12/5/1976 by registered sale deed in favour of other persons and thus, only 3.73 decimal remained available in hand. Further case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.1/ Ram Autar fraudulently got 10 decimal of land recorded in his name. By way of amendment, it was also pleaded that the defendant, vide sale deed dtd. 20/8/1985, sold another parcel of land. According to the plaintiff, sale made by defendant No.2 was in excess of his own share. The relief, however, was confined to seeking a declaration that the mutation order passed by the Collector on 4/7/1983 is valid only to the extent of 3.73 decimal plot which remained in the hands of defendant No.2 and the order is inoperative in respect of the share of the plaintiff. The Defendants having disputed the claim of the plaintiff, learned trial Court framed as many as 5 issues. One of the issue was whether a partition had already taken place between the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Learned Trial Court recorded finding against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appeal, learned Lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by recording a finding that the sale of disputed land effected under two sale deeds dtd. 23/6/1976 and 20/8/1985 was valid only to the extent of 3.73 decimal and therefore, the order of the Collector directing mutation in respect of land beyond 3.73 decimal is inoperative.