1 2025:CGHC:46470 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 396 of 2020 1. Widow Salmi W/o Late Matiyas Aged About 60 Years (Now 66 Years Running) 2. Prafulla S/o Late Matiyas Aged About 25 Years Now 31 Years 3. James S/o Late Matiyas Aged About 30 Years Now 37 Years All appellants are by Caste Orawn, R/o Village Kharijhariya, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1. Remis Tigga S/o Mangu Aged About 65 Years Now 71 Years Caste Orawn R/o Kharijhariya, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For State/ Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Nikhil Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 11/09/2025 2 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ plaintiffs challenging judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kunkuri District Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.21A/2018, upholding the judgment and decree dated 02.8.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.05A/2015 whereby learned trial Court partly allowed civil suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of their title in respect of suit land bearing Khasra No.43/1 [k rakba 0.243 hectare and allowed counter claim filed by respondent No.1/ defendant in respect of suit land Khasra No.43/1x rakba 0.405 hectare. Learned trial Court also granted injunction in favour of plaintiffs in respect of suit land bearing Khasra No. 43/1 [k and further directed appellants/plaintiffs to grant vacant possession of portion of suit land bearing Khasra No. 43/1x rakba 0.028 hectare by removing house within two months constructed over it by the plaintiffs. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that Matiyas (husband/ father of respective plaintiffs) and defendant No.1 Remis Tigga were real brothers. In the year 1976-77 they were granted patta of piece of land bearing khasra No.43/1. After granting patta, the land granted to Matiyas was recorded as khasra No.43/1 [k rakba 0.243 hectare and land granted to defendant No.1 Remis Tigga was renumbered as Khasra No. 43/1x rakba 0.405 hectare. He further submits that 3 defendant No.1 started dispute stating that plaintiffs have encroached some piece of his suit land bearing Khasra No. 43/1x which has given rise to filing of instant civil suit by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel next submits that vide impugned judgment and decree, learned trial Court has granted decree only on the basis of demarcation report (ExD4) proved by DW1, in which, it has been reported by demarcation authority that plaintiffs have constructed house by encroaching 0.028 hectare of Khasra No. 43/1x whereas, Matiyas (father of plaintiffs No.2 & 3) had constructed that house, prior to year 1975-76. He also submits that aforesaid fact has been proved by plaintiffs and their witness PW2 Juvel, but, it has not been relied upon by both the Courts below, only on the basis of demarcation report Ex.D4, impugned judgment has been passed, hence, he prayed that instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ defendant No.1 supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court and upheld by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 6. As per the case of plaintiffs, patta was granted to Matiyas (husband/ father of respective plaintiffs) of land bearing khasra No.43/1 area admeasuring 0.243 hectare situated at village Kharijhariya, Patwari Halka No.24, Tehsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) which was subsequently, renumbered in the name of Matiyas as Khasra No.43/1[k. In this regard, plaintiffs have filed certified copy of patta (Ex.P1) issued in the name of their husband / father Matiyas. Original 4 patta has not been filed by them. Perusal of patta (Ex.P1) (certified copy) shows that area granted to Matiyas vide aforesaid patta has been manipulated as it has been mentioned as 1.60 acre, but as per pleading of plaintiffs area of Khasra No.43/1[k is 0.243 hectare though it has been pleaded by plaintiffs and deposed by their witnesses that less area was recorded by defendant in revenue record with regard to land granted to Matiyas. But, aforesaid contention is not found to be reliable as in Ex.P1 (certified copy of patta) area granted to Matiyas has been manipulated and no revenue record has been filed by plaintiffs to prove the fact that how much area was recorded in revenue records after granting patta to him. 7. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has filed original patta (Ex.D12) which shows that in the year 1976-77, he has been granted patta of 1 acre of khasra No.43/1. Revenue records (Ex.D1) Kishtbandi Khautauni of the year 2016-17 and (Ex.D3) Kishtbandi Khautauni of the year 1981-82 shows that the land granted to the defendant No.1 Remis Tigga was renumbered in his name in revenue record as Khasra No. 43/1x , area 1 acre (0.405 hectare). 8. Ex.D4 is demarcation report prepared by Revenue officer, Ex.D5 is Panchanama, Ex.D6 is notice, Ex.D7 is field book, Ex.D8 is copy of revenue map and Ex.D9 is copy of khasra. 9. As per aforesaid demarcation report, after demarcation of suit land, revenue authority has reported that plaintiffs have encroached 0.028 hectare land, out of area 0.405 hectare of khasra No. 43/1x and defendant No.1 is in possession over the remaining land i.e., 0.377 hectare of suit land khasra No. 43/1x . 10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and oral and documentary 5 evidence available on record, concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is finding of fact based on the evidence available on record which does not call for any interference. Hence, no substantial question of law is found to be framed. 11. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. 12.Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi AYUSHI SINGH Digitally signed by AYUSHI SINGH Date: 2025.09.16 15:25:21 +0530