-1- 2025:CGHC:3862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 210 of 2018 1 - Uday Singh Sahu S/o Late Shri Soman Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Tulsipur, Ward No.16, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Gajanand Sahu S/o Late Shri Saman Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Bajrangpara, Ward No.8, Kohka Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1- Smt. Subhadra Bai Sahu W/o Keshav Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Raja Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Defendants), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.01.2025 1) Heard on the formulation of substantial question(s) of law. 2) Brief facts of the present case are as under:- A. The appellant/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, and permanent injunction pertaining to 0.09 acres of land bearing survey No. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 292/4, situated at village Rajabhanpuri, Tehsil and District Rajnandgaon, inter alia, on the ground that initially various land bearing survey numbers admeasuring 3.97 acres were recorded in the name of Soman Sahu. B. Most of the agricultural lands were sold during his lifetime and only 0.09 acre land remained in possession of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the real sister (married) of the plaintiffs. C. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of the 0.03 acre of land out of 0.09 acre. On the basis of the previous partition, they claimed partition and permanent injunction. D. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and claimed right over 0.09 acre of land by virtue of a will deed which was allegedly executed by her mother, namely, Kunwariya Bai in her favour. E. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that defendant No. 1 failed to prove the fact that the will deed was executed by her mother in her favour and at the same time, the plaintiffs also could not prove the fact that the will deed was not executed in favour of defendant No.1, as the will deed was not produced before the learned trial Court. F. It is further held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 had 1/3rd share/right over the suit property i.e. 0.09 acre, but the previous partition could not be proved. Consequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and later on, the learned appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial -3- Court. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that defendant No.1 is a married daughter, she had no right over the suit property and she failed to prove her right over the suit property by virtue of the will deed. He would further contend that the suit property was recorded in the name of Soman Sahu, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and after his death, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the property. He would contend that the learned Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit. Mr. Verma would lastly submit that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are perverse and give rise to substantial question of law. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Verma and submit that the plaintiffs sought relief of partition and permanent injunction on the basis of prevision possession over the suit property. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiffs could not prove the partition of the suit property. It is also held by the learned Courts below that as the will deed could not be proved by the defendant No.1, she had no right to claim ownership over the entire suit property as the partition was sought on the basis of possession of the parties. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6) Admittedly, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have equal rights over the suit property. In the present case, the learned Courts below have concurrently -4- recorded a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over any specific portion of the suit property. The Will deed relied upon by Defendant No.1 could not be proved, and therefore, defendant No.1 had no right to claim exclusive ownership over the entire suit property. Further, the claim for partition on the basis of possession of the parties is not maintainable in the absence of proof of possession. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. No cost(s). 8) A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim