2025:CGHC:40390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 77 of 2005 Reserved on : 16.06.2025 Delivered on : 12.08.2025 Jagannath Gupta, S/o Jhari Gupta, Age 45 years, R/o Bauripara Kenabandh, Town Ambikapur, P.S. & Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Ramvinay Singh, S/o Saryu Singh, Age 35 years, Occupation Contractor & Agriculture, R/o Kenabandh, Town Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - The State of M.P. (Now C.G.) through Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate. For State/Res. No. 2 : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by Fourth Additional District (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/2002 (Jagannath Gupta Vs. Ramvinay Singh & another) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1997 passed by Fifth Civil Judge, Class-II, ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.12 15:09:41 +0530 Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 219-A/1997 by which the defendant was restrained from interfering in possession of the suit property. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 219-A/1997. 3. The instant Second Appeal has been admitted for hearing by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2024 by framing following substantial question of law:- “Whether the learned Court below justified in holding that Amikutti Amma had authority to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, particularly when the suit property was not recorded in her name and the evidence in this regard has not been considered by the learned Courts below?” 4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 19.01.1993 for grant of permanent injunction and for restraining defendant No. 1 from construction over the land bearing plot No. 2130/10 area admeasuring 0.016 hectare part of Khasra No. 2130/1 situated at Patwari Halka No. 17, Kenabandh Mohalla, District- Surguja (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”) mainly contending that:- (A) The suit property belongs to Smt. Amikutti and she has given power of attorney to her husband- Ramchandra Nair for maintenance, management, sale and transfer. It has been further contended that the suit property has been sold to the plaintiff for Rs. 18,000/- by Ramchandra Nair who was power of attorney holder through registered sale-deed dated 29.07.1992 and the possession of the said land was given to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said land. As per the description of the suit property, in the east side, there is way to Kena Badh, in the west side, Ashok Mohapatra's land, in the north side, seller's remaining land & in the south side, Ring Road (Bauripara), is existed. The suit property has been mutated in the name of plaintiff and name has also been corrected in the revenue record. It is also case of the plaintiff that after correction in the revenue records, the same has been recorded as Khasra No. 2130/10. (B) It has been further contended that the defendant does not have any title, interest and right over the suit property as he is not in possession of the suit property. On 18.01.1993, the defendant with intention to forcefully occupying the suit land and to destroy the shape of the suit land, started digging plinth which has been stopped due to intervention of the plaintiff. Again on 19.01.1993 at about 9.00 a.m., the defendant started demolition of the suit property and when the plaintiff objected it, the defendant started assaulting and threatening him which has necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration and injunction. 5. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that:- (A) Amikutti Amma was not owner of the suit property and no power of attorney was executed by Amikutti Amma in favour of her husband. It has been further contended that the original owner of the suit land was Hiralal Dhobi and Amikutti Amma has fraudulently executed sale-deed in her favour and in this regard, Hiralal Dhobi had submitted an application before the Tahsildar Ambikapur on 12.05.1974 and on the basis of which the name of Amikutti Amma was not registered in the revenue records and subsequently the said land was returned back by Amikutti Amma to Hiralal Dhobi by re-registering the same in the name of Hiralal Dhobi. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1 purchased 0.04-1/2 acre land out of said plot through a registered sale- deed dated 10.01.1961 from Harilal Dhobi and from the date of purchase of the land, he started constructing a kutcha house on the said land and is occupying the same. The plaintiff has neither purchased the suit property nor he is in possession of the same. It has been further contended that since 1961, he is in peaceful possession of the suit property without any objection from anyone, therefore, he became owner of the additional land on account of adverse possession. (B) The defendant No. 1 has also filed counter claim for restraining the plaintiff from interfering in peaceful possession of the suit property which belongs to defendant No. 1. 6. The plaintiff has filed reply to the counter claim reiterating the fact which he has already taken in the plaint. 7. Learned trial Court on the pleading of the parties, has framed as many as eight issues and Issue No. 1 to 6 are relevant which are extracted below:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 for the land admeasuring 0.016 Khasra No. 2130/10 situated at Kenabandh, Tahsil- Ambikapur? 2. Whether defendant No. 1 owner of the suit land? 3. Whether defendant No. 1 is owner of 0.04 acre of land in addition to the land which has been mentioned in sale-deed dated 10.01.1961 which has been received on the basis of adverse possession? 4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable in absence of plaintiff’s possession over the suit land? 5. Whether defendant No. 1 is entitled to get permanent injunction against the plaintiff? 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?” 8. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined plaintiff- Ram Vinay himself as PW-1, Ramvilas Singh (PW-2), Vijay Railwani (PW-3), Najir Ram (PW-4), Shambhunath Singh (PW-5) & Ajit Singh (PW-6) and exhibited document namely sale-deed (Ex. P/1), Map (Ex. P/2) & Khasra Panchshala (Ex. P/3). 9. The defendant to substantiate his case has examined himself as DW-1, Sudarshan Behera (DW-2) & Kamta Prasad Pandey (DW-3) and exhibited document namely sale-deed (Ex. D/1), letter dated 19.07.1993 (Ex. D/2), mutation register (Ex. D/3), order of Tahsildar (Ex. D/4), notice issued by Nazul Officer (Ex. D/5), statement (Ex. D/6) & notice issued by Chief Municipal Officer for recovery of tax (Ex. D/7 to D/17). 10. Plaintiff- Ram Vinay (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the stand taken by him in the plaint and exhibited sale-deed (Ex. P/1) and Map (Ex. P/2). The said witness was cross-examined by the defendant wherein he has denied that defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property. He has also admitted that after obtaining the stay order from the Tahsildar, he has requested him to measure the suit property, accordingly, the Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector and Patwari to measure the suit property. He has also admitted that no document in this regard has been produced by him. He has also admitted that the record pertaining to demarcation is neither available with him nor available with the Tahsil office. 11. Ramvilas Singh (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that the plaintiff had purchased 4 dismill of land from Amikutti Amma through its power of attorney holder and also described the boundaries of the suit property. This witness has been cross-examined by the defendant wherein he has stated that Smt. Nair had also asked him to purchase the suit property but since it is not useful for him, he has not purchased the suit property as the distance between the suit property and his house is 500 metre. 12. Najir Ram (PW-4) Patwari in his evidence has stated that he had done measurement on 30.01.1993 and found that Jagannath was digging on the land of Ram Vinay then he told Jagannath to stop but he has refused to do so. He has also stated that he told Jagannath about his land’s boundaries. He has also stated that Jagannath has also purchased 4.25 dismil land from Hiralal in which Jagannath has constructed his house. He has also stated that Ram Vinay Singh & Jagannath have purchased part of Khasra No. 2130. He has also stated that Jagannath has purchased the land out of Khasra No. 2130/1 wherein name of Jagannath has been recorded. The witness was cross-examined wherein he has stated that he has prepared report dated 19.07.1993 (Ex. D/1) and submitted his report on 30.01.1993. He has also admitted that when dispute arose between the parties, Jagannath had moved an application before Tahsildar for mutation. He has denied that on oral order, he has done the demarcation. Page 7 of 16 13. Shambhunath Singh (PW-5) has stated that he has signed as witness in the sale-deed of the land which has been purchased by the plaintiff from Amikutti Amma. Amikutti Amma’s husband- Ramchandra Nair had come for execution of sale-deed in which he has signed as witness along with Ajit Singh and money transaction has taken place in Registrar office. He has further stated that after registry, Ramchandra Nair gave possession to Ram Vinay Singh. The witness was cross- examined wherein he has stated that after 1-2 days of registration the plaintiff was given possession. 14. Defendant- Jagannath (DW-1) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he is in possession of 4 dismil of suit land since 1957 which was n purchased in 1961 and when he started constructing wall on the suit land in the year 1993, the plaintiff raised dispute with him. He has also stated that Amikutti Amma has purchased the suit land from Hiralal Dhobi and due to dispute, the registration was returned back to Hiralal. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that Khasra number of the disputed property is 01/10 and also admitted that he has purchased the house which has been mentioned in the Registry and apart from the said property which he has purchased from Hiralal, no other land left for him. He has also stated that the plaintiff cannot purchase the suit property as it was in his possession. 15. Sudarshan Behera (DW-2) & Kamta Prasad Pandey (DW-3) have stated in their statement that the defendant is in possession of the open land adjacent to their house and they considered the defendant as the owner of the suit land. Page 8 of 16 16. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record decreed the suit in favour the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.1997 and has recorded its finding that previously the suit property was in possession of the defendant but after purchased by the plaintiff, the defendant was not in possession of the suit property, accordingly, Issue No. 1 & 2 have been decided in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court while deciding Issue No. 1 to 6 recorded its finding that on the basis of sale-deed, the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property, therefore, presumption will be drawn in favour of the plaintiff as he is in possession of the suit property and dismissed the counter claim of the defendant. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005. Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred the instant Second Appeal before this Court under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. which has been admitted by this Court on 26.09.2024 on the substantial question of law as stated above. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Courts are contrary to the facts and law in this regard. He would further submit that the learned Courts below have failed to consider that Smt. Amikutti Amma was not the owner of the suit property and the sale-deed is forged document which was alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the plaintiff. He would further submit that the learned Courts below ought to have considered that the plaintiff has neither established nor identified the suit land alleged to have been possessed by him. He would further submit that the learned Courts below have failed to consider that the defendant has purchased 4 dismil of land from Harilal through registered sale-deed and has perfected his title by way of adverse possession for the adjacent rest of the lands area admeasuring 4 dismil, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the plaintiff has purchased any plot from Khasra No. 2130/1. He would further submit that from perusal of the statement of Patwari Nazir Ram, it is clear that Amikutti Amma was not in possession of the land, therefore, Ram Vinay Singh was not in possession of the land nevertheless without seeking consequences relief for possession, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for permanent injunction only and the learned trial court has decreed the same which was confirmed by the learned lower appellate court. He would further submit that as per the registered sale deed vide Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1 the boundaries (Chauhaddi) of both the lands are one and the same, therefore, the proper identification of the suit property can be done by appointing Commissioner for physical identification of the suit property but the learned First Appellate Court has wrongly and illegally rejected the application filed by the present appellant/defendant under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC. He would further submit from physical verification of the suit property, it will clearly reveal that by the side of the Ring Road in North direction there is only a residential house and courtyard of defendant Jagannath Gupta except this there is no other piece of land available there upon which the plaintiff Ram Vinay Singh is claiming his title. He would further submit that presently Jagannath Gupta and his entire family members members are residing and except this there is no any other residential house of the defendant family for their livelihood, therefore, it will be very difficult for them for their survival if any adverse order is passed against them. He would further submit that appellant/defendant is first purchaser of the land who has purchased the land through registered sale-deed in the year 1961 whereas the plaintiff/respondents have purchased the land in the year 1992, therefore, as per Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant will prevail over the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff but the learned both the courts below have failed to consider the same. He would further submit it is settled position of law that the mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person in whose name mutation has been done and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that Amikutti Amma was actual owner of the land, therefore, the plaintiff cannot escape from proving his case taking the lacuna of the defendants title and would pray for allowing the second appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Balwant Singh and others Vs. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.R's. and others [(1997) 7 SCC 137], Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2021 SCC Online SC 802] & P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K Patkar [2023 INSC 1009]. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiff would submit that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are just and proper. He would further submit that the defendant in his counter claim has not prayed for declaring the sale- deed to be null and void and on the contrary, he has claimed the title over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession also which is not permissible unless he is able to establish essential parameter for obtaining decree on the basis of adverse possession. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the second appeal. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. Discussion and finding on Substantial Question of Law 20. From the evidence, pleadings of the parties and material on record, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff on the basis of sale-deed (Ex.P/1) dated 29.07.1992 has claimed the relief of injunction against the defendant though the defendant has taken a plea that the seller Amikutti Amma was not authorized to sell the suit property and subsequently she has returned the said property to Hiralal but he has not examined any witness to establish his contention by adducing evidence or producing the documentary evidence as the immovable property which is valued more than Rs. 100/- cannot be transferred without any registered document in view of Section 17A of the Registration Act, 1908 and accordingly, both the Courts below have recorded its finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale-deed. This finding does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants any interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that Section 35 in the Registration Act, 1908 provides that the Registrar allows registration of a document (i) if only he is satisfied as to the identity of the person who executes the document, and (ii) if the executant admits the execution of the document and presumptions can be invoked in view of Sections 58, 59 & 60 (certificate) of the Registration Act. It is also well settled position of law that presumption of regularity of official acts in Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence is also attached to a registered deed and the certificate endorsed on a registered deed by the registering officer is a relevant piece of evidence for proving its execution. It is also well settled position of law that there is a presumption that registered document is valid and in accordance with law executed. It is also well settled position of law that the genuineness can also be drawn on registered deed invoking presumption in favour of registered sale-deed. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Jamila Begum Vs. Shami Mohd. & another [(2019) 2 SCC 727] has held in paragraphs 16 to 20 as under:- “15. In the sale deed dated 21.12.1970, vendor Wali Mohd. had stated that he had executed the sale deed out of his free will and volition. The relevant recitals of sale deed dated 21.12.1970 read as under:- “…..Therefore, in my full senses and in disposing mind and body and without any pressure or coercion from anybody, I execute this agreement to sell, of my own will, for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) in favour of Smt. Jamila alias Nandani so that it may be of use when the need arises.” 16. Sale deed dated 21.12.1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. In Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others (2006) 5 SCC 353, it was held as under:- “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” The above judgment in Prem Singh’s case has been referred to in Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale v. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale and Others (2009) 12 SCC 101. 17. Contention of the respondent-plaintiff is that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, Wali Mohd. was mentally weak and therefore, he was not in a position to understand and that the sale deed was not executed out of his free will and volition. To substantiate their case, respondent No.1-plaintiff has examined Dr. Wasim (PW-5) who has stated that he has treated Wali Mohd. from the period 15.11.1970 to 25.12.1970 and produced the medical certificate-Ex.50 Kha. From the evidence of Dr. Wasim (PW-5) and from his medical certificate-Ex.50 Kha., respondent-plaintiff has thus tried to show that at the time of the execution of the sale deed, Wali Mohd. was not in such a position to apply his mind and understand the contents of the sale deed. As pointed out by the trial court, Dr. Wasim was doing private practice from the year 1969 and that at the time of issuing medical certificate, he had experience of medical practice for only two years. Dr. Wasim has admitted that he was not knowing Wali Mohd. from before. By way of clarification from Dr. Wasim, it is brought in evidence that Dr. Wasim did not prepare the medical certificate-Ex.50 Kha. after seeing the prescriptions written and maintained by him during illness of Wali Mohd.; but he prepared the same only on the basis of his memory. Dr. Wasim also clarified that about 10-15 days prior to the treatment of Wali Mohd., Dr. K.N. Srivastava and Dr. Sikka also treated Wali Mohd; but the other two doctors were not examined, though Dr. Sikka was stated to be in Kanpur. 18. The trial court also referred to Exs.44 Kha. to 49 Kha. and Ex.51 Kha. filed by the respondent-plaintiff to show about the illness of Wali Mohd., all of which relate to the period from March 1971 to June 1971. The prescriptions relate to the period from March 1971 to June 1971. After referring to these documents, trial court observed that the condition of Wali Mohd. started deteriorating after March, 1971. From the evidence of Dr. Wasim and the medical certificate -Ex.50 Kha. issued by him, it cannot be said that Wali Mohd. was not mentally fit at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 and that the same was not validly executed. 19. On the contrary, the appellant-defendant has examined Advocate Ahmad (DW-3) who has prepared the sale deed and the scribe of sale deed dated 21.12.1970. At the time of writing the sale deed, Advocate Ahmad (DW-3) was having Bar experience of nine years. In his evidence, DW-3 – Shri Ahmad has stated that on the instruction of Wali Mohd., he had prepared the sale deed and that sale deed was validly executed by Wali Mohd. out of his free will and consent. As pointed out by the trial court, DW-3 – Advocate Ahmad was personally knowing Wali Mohd. and that being the scribe of the sale deed, Ex.75 Kha. contains the signature of DW-3 – Shri Ahmad, Advocate. 20. The trial court upon consideration and weighing the evidence of Advocate Ahmad (DW-3) and Dr. Wasim (PW-5) held that “…….the evidence of Shri Ahmad, Advocate is comparatively more acceptable and believable.” Upon appreciation of oral evidence, when the trial court has recorded the findings that the evidence of Advocate Ahmad (DW-3) is credible and acceptable, in our considered view, the first appellate Court and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded by the trial court; more so, when the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 was a registered document. The first appellate Court and the High Court were not right in holding that the sale deed Ex.75 Kha. (21.12.1970) was not validly executed.” 21. It is also well settled position of law that besides the presumption on a registered document that it is validly executed, there is also a presumption that the “transaction is a genuine one” as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo [(2009) 5 SCC 713] wherein it has been held in paragraph 19 as under:- “19. The deed of sale dated 29.6.1978 was a registered one. It, therefore, carries a presumption that the transaction was a genuine one. Respondent was the son of the vendor. He was an attesting witness. In his written statement, he categorically denied execution of the said deed of sale. He also denied that he had attested the document. He even did not examine himself before the learned Trial Judge. His witnesses merely proved his possession. The fact that the respondent's father was put in possession with effect from 1.7.1978 was in dispute. What was in dispute was the character of his possession. Did he continue to possess the godown as owner thereof or on the basis of leave and licence was the question, which was not considered in its proper perspective by any of the three courts below.” 22. From the above-stated legal preposition, it is quite vivid that the registered sale-deed dated 29.07.1992 executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid and in accordance with law executed and the defendant has not led any evidence to rebut the same, therefore, even if in the revenue record, name of the plaintiff has not been mutated, still it does not confer any right in favour of the defendant. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for defendant itself clearly establishes that the entry in the revenue record does not confer any title, it is only for fiscal purposes only and the defendant has not examined the alleged seller Hiralal before the trial Court to claim title over the suit property. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Kishore Kumar (supra) has held in paragraphs13 to 15 as under:- “13. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh & Ors vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) by LRs and Ors.3 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. 14. In Jitendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.4, this Court after considering a catena of judgments, reiterated the principle of law as follows: “6. ***mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” 15. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.5 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.” 23. Considering the above-stated facts and position of law and also considering that in absence of any evidence to disbelieve the genuineness of registered sale-deed which carries presumption of genuineness, therefore, I am of the view that the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the defendant/appellant by recording finding that Amikutti Amma was authority to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Page 16 of 16 24. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun