1 SA No. 566 of 2015 2026:CGHC:2384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 566 of 2015 1 - Suresh Kumar Hemnani (Died) Through Lrs. as per Court Order Dated- 03- 04-2025. 1.1 - Maya Hemnani W/o Suresh Hemnani Aged About 51 Years R/o Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 1.2 - Kailash Hemnani S/o Late Shri Suresh Hemnani Aged About 31 Years R/o Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 1.3 - Poonam Hemnani D/o Late Shri Suresh Hemnani Aged About 25 Years R/o Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Rajkumar Hemnani S/o Late Daulatram Hemnani (H. U. F.). Aged About 50 Years Caste Sindhi, R/o Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh Appellants versus 1 - Mohan S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 52 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Kalipur, Tehsil Jagdalpu, District Baster Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baster Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.16 15:05:46 +0530 2 SA No. 566 of 2015 3 - Smt. Mala W/o Bhagirathi, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kalipur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Tuti @ Dulari W/o Mansingh, Aged About 33 Years R/o Seoni, Police Station Bhanpuri, Tehsil Baster, District Baster Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Chandra W/o Fagnuram, Aged About 28 Years R/o Rojgari Para, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 6 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Kunjobai As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 10- 06-2025 And 23-06-2025. 7 - Smt. Parvati Nayak D/o Late Neelkanth Nayak, Aged About 36 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Kalipur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Smt. Heemabindu Nayak D/o Late Shri Neelkanth Nayak, Aged About 34 Years Caste Dhobi, R/o Kalipur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Baster Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Resp. 3 & 5 : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For Resp. 7 & 8 : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra and Ms. Deeksha Pandey, Advocates For State Mr. Santosh Soni, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 15/01/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18- 3 SA No. 566 of 2015 A/2014 (Smt. Kunjobai v. Deceased/Not Existent & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2012 (Smt. Kunjobai v. Ghasiram & Others), by which the suit of the plaintiff had initially been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The present Second Appeal has thus been filed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the appellants herein, being aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment of the Trial Court. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. The dispute pertains to ancestral agricultural land situated at Village Kalipur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, within Patwari Halka No. 102, Revenue Circle Jagdalpur, comprising Khasra Nos. 622/1 and 636 admeasuring a total area of 4.40 hectares, as described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). 4. The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 21-A/2012 seeking declaration of title over the suit land and for a declaration that the sale deed executed in respect thereof be declared null and void. According to the plaintiffs , Defendant No. 1 is the father-in-law of Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 is her brother-in-law, while Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of Plaintiff No. 1. It was pleaded that the suit land is ancestral property recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1, in which the plaintiffs also have ownership rights. Despite this, Defendant No. 1, without the 4 SA No. 566 of 2015 consent of the plaintiffs, sold a portion of the suit land admeasuring 3.41 hectares to Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for a consideration of ₹10,30,000/-, thereby necessitating the present suit. 5. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in their written statement, admitted the relationship between the parties, the ancestral nature of the land, and the execution of the sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4, but denied the remaining allegations and justified the sale on the ground that Defendant No. 1, being more than 85 years of age and physically incapacitated, was compelled to sell his property for his livelihood due to neglect and non-maintenance by the plaintiffs. However, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 denied all the plaint allegations and additionally contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed for insufficient court fee. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit land was ancestral or that they had any right, title, or interest therein. The Trial Court found that the documentary evidence consistently recorded the land in the name of late Ghasiram and that the plaintiffs’ oral evidence was unreliable and contradicted by their own admissions in cross-examination, including admissions that late Ghasiram had full authority to alienate the land and had earlier sold portions thereof without objection. Consequently, it was held that the registered sale deed dated 19.03.2008 executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 was valid and did not require the plaintiffs’ consent. As the 5 SA No. 566 of 2015 plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to the reliefs claimed, the suit was dismissed with costs. However, the First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 30.06.2015, reversed the findings of the Trial Court by holding that the suit land was ancestral/joint family property and that late Ghasiram was not the absolute owner thereof. Relying upon the old revenue records, particularly Exhibit P-2, the recitals contained in the registered sale deed dated 19.03.2008 (Exhibit P-11), and the admissions made by defence witnesses in cross-examination, the First Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiffs, being the widow and daughters of late Neelkanth, had a subsisting share in the suit property. It was further held that the sale executed by late Ghasiram in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 without the consent of other co-sharers was not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their share. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, giving rise to the present Second Appeal filed by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants (Defendant Nos. 3 and 4) submits that the First Appellate Court has committed a manifest error of law in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. It is contended that the burden of proving that the suit land was ancestral or joint family property squarely lay upon the plaintiffs, which they failed to discharge. It is argued that the First Appellate Court misread the revenue records and erroneously relied upon the recitals of the sale deed and stray admissions of witnesses to hold the property to be ancestral, ignoring the 6 SA No. 566 of 2015 consistent documentary evidence showing exclusive ownership of late Ghasiram. Learned counsel further submits that the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence without recording any finding of perversity in the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court and thereby exceeded its jurisdiction. On these grounds, it is urged that the impugned judgment and decree are unsustainable in law and give rise to substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. At the outset, it is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined only to cases involving a substantial question of law. Re-appreciation of evidence or interference with findings of fact is impermissible unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by misapplication of settled principles of law. 10. In the present case, the principal issue revolves around the nature of the suit land whether it was the self-acquired property of late Ghasiram or ancestral/joint family property and the consequential validity of the sale deed dated 19.03.2008 executed by him in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4. 11. The First Appellate Court has rightly placed reliance upon the categorical admissions made by defence witness Mohan Nayak in his cross-examination, wherein he admitted that after the death of 7 SA No. 566 of 2015 Bhagwandin, the ancestral land came to be recorded in the name of Ghasiram; that Neelkanth, being the elder son, had a lawful share therein; and, significantly, that no portion of the said ancestral property was ever allotted or given to the legal heirs of Neelkanth. Such clear admissions constitute substantive evidence and were rightly relied upon by the First Appellate Court in determining not only the ancestral nature of the suit property but also the exclusion of Neelkanth’s successors from their legitimate share. 12. The First Appellate Court has also correctly taken into consideration the recital contained in the registered sale deed dated 19.03.2008 (Exhibit P- 11), wherein the vendor himself described the suit property as ancestral and acknowledged his title flowing therefrom. Recitals in a registered document operate against the executant and carry significant evidentiary value. 13. The said finding is further supported by Exhibit P-2, the revenue record of the year 1932-33, which traces the lineage of the property from Bhagwandin to Ghasiram. In the absence of any pleading or proof of self-acquisition or partition, the presumption drawn by the First Appellate Court that the suit land was joint family property cannot be faulted. 14. The Trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the revenue records stood in the name of late Ghasiram. However, the First Appellate Court, upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the suit land was 8 SA No. 566 of 2015 ancestral/joint family property, based on antecedent revenue records, admissions of defence witnesses, and the recitals contained in the registered sale deed itself. Once, it was found that the property was ancestral, the First Appellate Court correctly examined the rights of the plaintiffs, who are the widow and daughters of late Neelkanth, in the light of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that they had a subsisting share in the suit property. 15. The contention of the appellants that late Ghasiram was the absolute owner merely because the revenue entries stood in his name cannot be accepted. It is well settled that mutation entries do not confer title and are meant only for fiscal purposes. Mere entries in the name of the Karta do not alter the character of ancestral property, particularly when supported by antecedent records and admissions on record. 16. The argument that the First Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence is also without substance. Being the final court of facts, the First Appellate Court was well within its jurisdiction to independently assess the evidence and reverse the findings of the Trial Court for cogent and lawful reasons. The further contention that the sale deed executed by late Ghasiram was valid and binding in entirety is equally untenable. Once the property is held to be ancestral, the Karta could not have alienated the same so as to bind the shares of other coparceners in the absence of pleaded or proved legal necessity or consent. The First Appellate Court has rightly limited the binding effect of the sale deed to the extent permissible in law. 9 SA No. 566 of 2015 17. Upon careful examination of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are purely findings of fact, based on evidence available on record, and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The grounds urged by the appellants essentially seek re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in a Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is made out. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to make out any case warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. 19. Accordingly, the present Second Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2014 are affirmed. 20. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul