Chattisgarh High Court
Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal vs Pradyut Pal (Dead) Through Pankaj Pal on 22 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:34741
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA No. 83 of 2023
Judgment Reserved on 09.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on 22.07.2025
Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal D/o Shivraj Tandi, Aged About 35 Years Occupation
Gramin Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Address 23/450, Behind Bajrang Mandir, Shakti
Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District -Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o L.I.G. -2
Chiranjividas Nagar, Kouhakunda, Raigarh, Tahsil And, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
...Appellant / defendant
versus
Pradyut Pal (Dead) Through Pankaj Pal S/o Paritosh Kumar Pal, Aged About 49
Years R/o L.I.G.-58, Dr. R.G. Nagar, Phase-2, Housing Board Colony Korba,
District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent / plaintiff
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
C A V Judgment
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / defendant under
Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging impugned
judgment & decree dated 29th April, 2023 passed by District Judge,
Raigarh in Civil Suit A/23/2016 [Pradutt Pal (dead) vs. Sheela Tandi @
2
Sheela] whereby possession decree has been granted in favour of
respondent /plaintiff.
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as
per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court]
2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that the plaintiff / husband instituted
a civil suit seeking possession of House No. L.I.G. 2 situated at
Chiranjeev Das Nagar, Kauhakunda, Raigarh, District Raigarh shown in
Schedule “A” attached with the plaint (henceforth, ‘suit house’) against
defendant / wife stating inter alia that marriage of plaintiff / husband was
solemnized with respondent / wife on 11.05.2007, but because of cruelty
meted out to him by defendant / wife, they resided separately since 2010.
Ultimately, plaintiff / husband obtained decree of divorce vide order dated
31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 41-A/2010
(Pradyut Kumar Pal vs. Smt. Sheela Pal) and their marriage was
dissolved from the date of said order i.e. from 31.03.2014. Civil suit for
restoration of conjugal right bearing Civil Suit No. 42-A / 2012 filed by
appellant/ wife was also dismissed by the Family Court, Raigarh vide
judgment & decree dated 31.03.2012. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff
that he is working in Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh. In the year,
2005, he purchased the suit house and gave it on rent, but taking
advantage of absence of plaintiff, on 19.12.2012, respondent/wife
alongwith Anjali Tiwari and about 8-10 other persons forcefully entered in
the suit house, ousted the tenants and illegally taken possession of the
suit house and since then she is residing therein. Even after being
complaint made to the police station, no action was taken against the
defendant and other persons, therefore, on being private complaint made
3
by him, Criminal Case No. 529 of 2013 for offence under Sections 452 &
448/34 of the IPC has been registered against them. It is further pleaded
that since suit house was purchased by plaintiff prior to his marriage and
decree of divorce has also been granted in his favour, therefore, the
defendant/ wife has no right at all in the suit house, despite that she has
forcefully occupied the suit house, hence, he filed civil suit seeking
possession of it from the defendant/wife.
3. Defendant/wife has filed written statement pleading therein that all
the allegations levelled against her by the plaintiff is false & baseless. It is
further pleaded that since she (defendant) has performed love marriage
with the plaintiff, therefore, in the hope of pleasureful and prosperous
marital life, she has given amount to the plaintiff to purchase the suit
house, thus, she has also invested amount to purchase the suit house,
hence, plaintiff is not the sole owner but he is a co-owner of the suit house
along with the defendant, therefore, possession of defendant /wife on the
suit house cannot be said to be illegal. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled
to get vacant possession of the suit house by evicting the defendant.
4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court
framed as many as three issues, recorded evidence of both the parties
and after considering the same, allowed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff
/husband and granted decree in his favour holding therein that the plaintiff
has purchased the suit house alone and all the sale consideration /
installments have been paid by him. The defendant has not invested any
amount in this regard and she has forcefully taken possession of the suit
house, therefore, she is directed to hand over the vacant possession of
4
the suit house to the plaintiff.
5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, instant first appeal
has been preferred by the appellant / defendant questioning the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant would
submit that though marriage of defendant was solemnized with the plaintiff
in the year 2007, but prior to that, they were in love affair, as such, they
performed love marriage. He further submits that to purchase the suit
house, the defendant had given huge amount to the plaintiff, therefore,
she is also co-owner of the suit house alongwith the plaintiff. It is further
contended that though decree of divorce has been granted in favour of
plaintiff, but the same has been challenged by defendant before the High
Court, hence, the fate of suit has not been finalized, rather because of
filing appeal, it amounts to continuation of the suit, therefore, finding
recorded by the trial court that defendant has no right to keep possession
of the suit house, is not sustainable. It is next contended that original
plaintiff has expired, but his brother has been illegally impleaded and
permitted to represent instant civil suit. It is submitted that since
defendant is co-owner of the suit house and as of now her husband /
original plaintiff has died, decree of divorced has not attained finality,
therefore, she cannot be dispossessed from suit house. As such, the
finding recorded by trial court is against the law & evidence available on
record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would
support the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.
5
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record including record of trial Court.
9. Undisputedly, the original plaintiff (now dead) and
appellant/defendant were husband & wife and their marriage was
solemnized on 11.05.2007. It is also proved from oral & documentary
evidence adduced by the parties that vide judgment & decree dated
31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 41A/2010
(Pradyut Kumar Pal vs. Smt. Seela Pal) , decree of divorce was granted in
favour of plaintiff/ husband and their marriage was dissolved from the date
of passing of the said order i.e. from 31.03.2014. As such, legal status of
defendant as wife of plaintiff came to an end from 31.03.2014.
10. The plaintiff has purchased the suit house from C.G. Housing
Board, Project Division, Raigarh in the year 2004-2005 through a lease
deed (Ex. P-7) under the self-finance scheme. For this, he had taken a
loan from the bank and got the remaining installments deducted from his
bank account. All these facts have been proved by plaintiff – Pradut
Kumar Pal (PW-1) himself & Pankaj Gurupanchanan (PW-2), who is
employee of Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raigarh. In this regard, the
plaintiff has also filed original lease deed of suit house, its copy and copy
of his loan account of Bank vide Ex. P-7 to Ex.P-24. Nothing has been
brought in their cross-examination to elicit aforesaid facts.
11. Defendant – Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal has stated in her
deposition that while purchasing the suit house, plaintiff had borrowed Rs.
2,00,000/- from her and stated that suit house shall be purchased in the
joint name with her and under hope of bright and prosperous marital live,
6
she had given amount to the plaintiff, but he had purchased the suit house
vide lease deed (Ex.P-7) only in his name. The defendant has neither
examined any other witness in support of her contention nor has filed any
document in this regard. On the one hand, she has stated in her
deposition that, she had given Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff to purchase
suit house but in other hand i.e. in cross-examination, she has stated that
she had deposited that amount in the office of Housing Board, but she has
not filed any document to substantiate her deposition.
12. As per oral & documentary evidence of Pradut Kumar Pal (PW-1)
and Pankaj Gurupanchanan (PW-2) and loan account statement of
plaintiff, the plaintiff has purchased the suit house in the year 2004-2005
by way of lease deed (Ex.P-7) and total value of lease i.e. ₹ 3,64,180/-
was also paid by him till 27.6.2006 and possession of suit house was also
handed over to the plaintiff /husband on 30.6.2006, then, after one year,
marriage of defendant was solemnized with the plaintiff on 11.05.2007.
Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is very well proved that about one
year prior to their marriage, the original plaintiff had purchased the suit
house by way of lease deed (Ex.P-7) by taking loan from the Bank and all
the amount was paid by him through his Bank account, therefore, only on
the basis of verbal and unsupported statement of defendant, it cannot be
held that defendant had given any amount to the plaintiff or deposited any
installment of the suit house for the purpose of purchase of the suit house.
As such, finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the suit house
was purchased by plaintiff is well merited and based on well appreciation
of evidence available on record, hence, the same is upheld.
7
13. Plaintiff – late Pradutt Kumar Pal (PW-1) has deposed that after
purchase of the suit house, he had given the same on rent, but on
19.12.2012, defendant alongwith some other persons forcefully entered in
the suit house, ousted the tenants and forcefully occupied the suit house
and since then she is residing therein. This fact also get support from
deposition of B.P. Mishra, Sub Inspector (PW-3), who, on being private
complaint filed by the plaintiff against defendant and others, had enquired
the matter and submitted report before the Court and Suresh Agrawal
(PW-4), who was residing in the suit house on rent. Respondent – Sheela
Tandi @ Sheela Pal (DW-1) herself has admitted in her cross-examination
that before entering into the suit house, she had informed the concerned
police station in writing and thereafter, on 19.12.2012 she had entered
into the suit house and since then, she is in possession over it. This fact is
also get support from the evidence of Sub-Inspector – B.P. Mishra (PW-3).
Thus, it is very well proved that defendant has got forceful possession on
the suit house since 19.12.2012 and, thereafter, she is continuous in
possession of the same. But, it has also been proved that suit house was
purchased on lease by original plaintiff – Pradut Pal from his own income,
therefore, he was absolute owner of the suit house.
14. Undisputedly, defendant was legally wedded wife of original
plaintiff – Pradutt Kumar Pal (now dead), but decree of divorce was
granted in his favour on 31.03.2014 and their marriage was dissolved
from 31.03.2014, therefore, right of defendant to inherit the property of
plaintiff /husband as his wife came to an end with the wife losing her
status as wife consequent upon decree of divorce, therefore, she cannot
inherit / succeed the suit house of the plaintiff/husband.
8
15. Though, the defendant has pleaded that she has challenged
judgment & decree dated 31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in
Civil Suit No.41-A/2010, whereby decree of divorce was granted to the
plaintiff, but nothing has been deposed by her in her deposition nor she
has filed copy of memo of appeal, etc, therefore, aforesaid pleading made
by defendant/wife cannot be held to be proved.
16. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned judgment & decree passed by the trial Court, which call for
any indulgence of this Court, therefore, judgment & decree passed by
the trial Court is affirmed.
17. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the
appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed. There is no order as to cost (s).
18. A decree be drawn- up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
AMIT
Digitally signed
by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date: Judge
DUBEY 2025.07.23
11:17:04 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link