1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 758 of 2017 1 - Jhamaru S/o Late Lakshu, Aged About 52 Years Caste Uraon, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kharakona, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Samaru S/o Late Lakshu, Aged About 47 Years Caste Uraon, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kharakona, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ..............Plaintiffs, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Silo D/o Antram, Aged About 49 Years Caste Uraon, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Kharakona, P.S. And Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Surguja, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendants, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Gore Lal Tandon, Advocate For State / : Mr. Narayan Prasad, PL PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.05.13 16:57:30 +0530 2 Respondent(s) Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 11/05/2026 Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) by the appellants/plaintiffs. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. A/7/2015 by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2015 passed by the learned 4th Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 08-2007 (10A/2009) was affirmed. Parties are referred to their status before the learned Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 belong to the Uraon caste and follow Hindu rites and rituals in matters of marriage, birth, death, and succession and the defendant No. 1 is the widow of the plaintiffs’ deceased brother, namely late Chamru. The suit property comprised in piece of Khasra Nos. 261, 263, 308, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 479, 489, 630, 631, 632, 633, 777, 779, 800, 809, 810, 811, 820, 825, 880 and 882, admeasuring 0.214, 0.214, 0.259, 0.174, 0.024, 0.413, 0.114, 0.373, 0.122, 0.097, 0.303, 0.081, 0.028, 0.240, 0.598, 0.182, 0.368, 0.049, 0.347, 0.134, 0.673, 0.267, 0.073 and 0.918 hectares respectively, recorded in the name of late Lakshu, situated at Village Kharakona, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). The said 3 property is fully described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. Additional properties are described in Schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid property was originally held and possessed by the plaintiffs’ grandfather, late Jagru, since the princely era, who cultivated and enjoyed the same during his lifetime and after the death of Jagru, the property devolved upon his son late Lakshu (father of the plaintiffs), who remained in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property throughout his lifetime and upon the death of late Lakshu, the suit property devolved upon the plaintiffs and their brother late Chamru, who jointly succeeded the same. That the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 are residents of Village Kharakona since the princely era and are governed by customary practices akin to Hindu law. That the defendant No. 1 was married to the plaintiffs’ brother, late Chamru; however, during his lifetime, she deserted him and went to reside at her parental home, and subsequently started living with one Keshwar S/o Bortang Uraon at Village Dhuku. During the said period, the plaintiffs’ brother, late Chamru, was murdered and that during his lifetime, late Lakshu (father of the plaintiffs) a partition of the suit property between plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2, and they came into separate possession of their respective shares. 4. After the death of Lakshu, (father of the plaintiffs) defendant No. 1 submitted an application for mutation of her name in the revenue records pertaining to the suit property. The said application was initially dismissed by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the said order, defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) which was allowed, and it was directed that the name of defendant No. 1 be recorded in the revenue records along with the names of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of their title over the suit property. They also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining 4 defendant No. 1 from partition of the suit property and from transferring or alienating the same in favour of any third party. 5. The defendant No. 1 appeared before the learned Trial Court and denied the averments made in the plaint. She further pleaded that she is the widow of late Chamru and was never deserted by him. It has been specifically stated that during the lifetime of her husband, she did not remarry, nor does she know any person named Keshwar Uraon of Village Dukhu. It is further contended that no partition has taken place after the death of her husband. Being the legally wedded wife of late Chamru, the defendant No. 1 claims entitlement to succeed to one-half share in the suit property. 6. On the basis of above broad pleading, following issues have been framed. Issue Conclusion Whether the defendant No. 1, Silo was deserted during her husband’s lifetime? No Whether the defendant No. 1, Silo is the widow of the deceased Chamru? Yes Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are not governed by Hindu Law? No (both parties are governed by Hindu Law) Relief and cost As per judgment 7. Plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined four witnesses and exhibited five documents. Defendant No. 1 examined herself and exhibited 16 documents and two articles. The learned trial Court on assessment of evidence available on record decided the issues in favour of the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Against which the first appeal was preferred before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that both the Courts below have committed errors of law as well as fact in dismissing the 5 suit and the first appeal. It is contended that ample evidence is available on record to establish that, during the lifetime of Chamru the defendant No. 1 had deserted him and left the matrimonial home to reside with one Keshwar resident of Village Dukhu. However, the Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the said evidence and the findings recorded on all issues are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. It is further submitted that during the lifetime of the plaintiffs’ father, a partition had already taken place between plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 which has not been duly considered by the Courts below. In view of the fact that defendant No. 1 had deserted the deceased Chamru, she is not entitled to succeed to the suit property. Thus, the substantial question of law may be formulated. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute with regard to the suit property is essentially a private dispute between the appellants and the private respondent, and the State has no substantive role to play in the adjudication of the present matter. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 11. The contention of learned counsel Mr. Tandon is that defendant No. 1 had already left the matrimonial home. In this regard, the learned trial Court framed Issue No. 1 while deciding the said issue, the trial Court discussed in detail the testimony of plaintiff No. 1, Jhamru, and observed that the factum of defendant No. 1 leaving her husband - Chamru, during his lifetime has not been specifically or cogently established. The trial Court further observed that during the lifetime of Chamru, no legal proceedings were initiated by him against defendant No. 1 on such allegations. It was also noted that Chamru died after about 14 years of marriage with defendant No. 1. The allegation that defendant No. 1 had gone away with one Keshwar of village Dukhu was also considered. However, the trial Court found that although Keshwar was alive, he was not examined as a witness. 6 Moreover, other witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that they had never seen defendant No. 1 residing in the house of Sillo. The trial Court further held that no documentary evidence was placed on record to establish that defendant No. 1 was residing with or had remarried Keshwar. It was also observed that no such allegation had been raised in the proceedings before the revenue Court. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiffs. These findings of fact have been affirmed by the first appellate Court therefore, do not warrant interference by this Court. 12. The second submission of Mr. Tandon is that the parties belong to a tribal community therefore, defendant No. 1 is not entitled to any share in the suit property. In this regard issue No. 3 was framed while dealing with this issue in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the judgment, the learned trial Court categorically held that both the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 belong to the Uraon caste and profess Hindu religion, and have been residing in Surguja since the princely era, following Hindu rights and rituals relating to birth, death, and other social practices. This finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and has also been affirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, the said contention is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. 12. The last contention raised is that a partition had already taken place during the lifetime of the father. However, upon perusal of the impugned order it does not appear that any such plea was ever proved in accordance with law by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, no specific issue was framed in this regard by the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, it has been consistently held that defendant No. 1 is the widow of late Chamru, who was the brother of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the rights accruing to her through her husband cannot be curtailed in law. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court which have been duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court do not warrant any interference by this Court. 7 13. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 no substantial question of law is involved which is sine qua non for admitting the appeal, the present appeal thus sans merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan