1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 258 of 2004  Mangilal, Aged About 75 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Kapil And Others Dashrath Lodhi, Aged About 70 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2. Pratap, Kapil Lodhi, Aged About 40 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3. Gophelal, Pilaram, Aged About 60 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Gangasagar, Ramlal Satnami, Aged About 40 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5. Hirau, Kejau, Aged About 65 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Bauddha, Kejau, Aged About 62 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Bhusundi, Tahsil Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7. State Of M. P. (Now State Of C. G.) Through- Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.18 14:06:53 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 4.2.2026 1) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law. 2) This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of CPC by appellant/ plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2003 dated 16.2.2004 whereby the first appeal preferred by original plaintiff – Lt. Guharam was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class – II, Bemetara in Civii Suit No. 33A/2001 dated 31.1.2003 was affirmed. 3) Facts of the present case are that original plaintiff – Lt. Guharam filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to land bearing Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2 ad- measuring 0.08 hectare and 0.081 hectare respectively situated at Village Bhusundi. He also challenged the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Saja dated 28.11.1997 whereby on an application moved under Section 89 of CG Land Revenue Code, 1959, names of defendants were entered in revenue record. Plaintiff pleaded that he was owner of Khasra Nos. 117/1 admeasuring 0.154 hectare, Khasra No. 121/2 ad-measuring 0.081 hectare, Khasra Nos. 142/2 and 144/2 ad-measuring 0.107 hectare. It is 3 further pleaded that new Khasra Nos. 121/1 and 121/2 are Khasra Nos. 249/1 and 249/2. It is also pleaded that Khasra No. 121/2 was sold by plaintiff to defendant No. 6, namely, Bauddha for sale consideration of Rs. 300/- through registered sale-deed dated 24.6.1977 and Khasra No. 142/2/ and 144/2 were sold by plaintiff to defendant No. 5, namely, Hirau for sale consideration of Rs.700/- through registered sale-deed dated 7.9.1974. Plaintiff stated that as there were some mistakes with regard to Khasra Nos and boundaries in the sale-deeds, Khasra No. 121/2 got recorded in the name of Pratap S/o Kapil but plaintiff remained in possession of said property. 4) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement and denied plaint averments. They pleaded that parties are in possession of their respective lands and they are in possession of Khasra No. 121/2 since the date of purchase. They also filed counter claim and sought relief of possession and permanent injunction. They affixed court fee of Rs. 525/-. Learned trial Court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed and counter claim was decreed. 5) Plaintiff preferred first appeal under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court whereby suit was dismissed but he failed to challenge the part of judgment and decree whereby counter claim was decreed and this fact is evident from the court fee affixed on memo of 4 appeal. Plaintiff affixed court fee of Rs. 100/- on plaint. Subsequently, the first appeal was dismissed. 6) Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is in possession of Khasra No. 121/2 since past 50 years and he has perfected his right over the property as per law of prescription. He further submits that there were some mistakes in the sale-deeds executed by plaintiff and this fact is evident from the demarcation report wherein it was found suit property is recorded in name of Pratap S/o Kapil and N.S. Chandrakar, Revenue Inspector (PW/5) has proved this fact in evidence. He argues that Naib Tehsildar committed error of law while dismissing the review application. 7) Heard. 8) Admittedly, suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed whereas counter claim filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 claiming therein possession and permanent injunction was decreed. In first appeal, plaintiff challenged dismissal of his suit but failed to challenge the part of judgment and decree whereby counter claim was decreed. Defendants No. 1 and 2 affixed court fee of Rs. 525/- on their counter claim whereas plaintiff affixed court fee of Rs. 100/- on memo of appeal. Thus, judgment and decree passed in counter claim attained finality. 9) A careful perusal of the averments made in plaint and sale-deeds 5 (Ex.-P/2 and D/1) would make it clear that plaintiff himself sold the suit property to Bouddha, who then sold it to Pratap S/o Kapil through registered sale-deed. With regard to adverse possession, plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved the ingredients of adverse possession and it is nowhere stated that as to when his possession became adverse to the true owners Furthermore, though the appellant has challenged the order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Saja dated 28.11.1997 but said order has not been placed on record. 10) The plaintiff in his evidence could not establish that he was in possession of suit property. Even he admitted the fact that he is not aware of the Khasra Nos. of the suit property whereas Kapil (DW/1), Pratap (DW/2), Gopelal (DW/3) and Gangasagar (DW/4) have categorically deposed that defendants No. 1 and 2 are in peaceful possession of suit property from the date of purchase. 11) In view of the foregoing discussion and the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, in my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a