1 2025:CGHC:12555 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 357 of 2013 1 - Shyam Singh S/o Late Bhadu Singh Gond, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Darbantola, P.O. Pailimeta, Tah. Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Civil and Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Umend Singh S/o Late Chaitram Gond, Aged About 50 Years 2 - Kamlesh S/o Late Umendi Gond, Aged About 21 Years 3 - Smt. Kanchan Bai D/o Late Umendi Gond, Aged About 31 Years 4 - Smt. Kumari Bai W/o Late Umendi Gond, Aged About 48 Years All R/o Darbantola, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G 5 - (Deleted) Ajuram (Died) Through LRs. As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 26-04-2023. 5.1 - (i) Smt. Neera Bai W/o Late Ajuram Aged About 51 Years 5.2 - (ii) Prakash S/o Aju Ram, Aged About 35 Years Both R/o Village Darbantola, Tahsil Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai, Chhattisgarh. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.03.19 10:57:29 +0530 2 5.3 - (iii) Anupa Bai W/o Rikhi Kumar Gond, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Padkitola, Tahsil Saja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5.4 - (iv) Anita W/o Hemant Gond, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Dharampura, Tahsil And District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) 1 to 5 For Respondent /State : Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate Mr.Dilman Rati Minj, Government Advocate SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board 17/03/2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 26.3.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No.10-A/2012, which, in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Chhuikhadan in Civil Suit No.1-A/2009. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and thereby, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed and a decree was 3 granted in their favour to the effect that the respondents/plaintiffs are the joint owners of the subject property – Schedule A of the plaint and an injunction has been issued against the appellant/defendant No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the parties are descendants of the common ancestor namely Ramsingh. Ramsingh had four sons namely Bisnath Singh, Bishambar Singh, Pitambar Singh and Bhadu Singh (all of them are dead). He would submit that the subject property belonged to Bishambar and after his death, his wife Pusai Bai came into the possession of the same. Both of them died issueless. The claim of the plaintiffs is that Bishambar Singh and his wife Pusai Bai had adopted their father namely Chaitram Gond as their son and after the death of Chaitram, the said property was partitioned amongst the legal heirs of Chaitram (plaintiffs/respondents herein). It has been further averred in the plaint that the appellant/defendant No.1, without impleading the plaintiffs, got mutated the subject property in his own name vide order dated 15.3.2008 passed by the Naib Tehsidar, Chhuikhadan. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title with regard to their joint ownership and permanent injunction. 4. The defendant No.1/appellant in his written statement denied the plaint averments and stated that Bishambar and his wife Pusai Bai had adopted him as their son. It has been further averred that after the death of Pusai Bai, his name has been duly recorded in the land record and thereafter, he had also obtained a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Maharashtra Bank for agricultural purpose. It has also been averred by the defendant that the plaintiffs/respondents had hatched a conspiracy and by creating pressure on him and further, by taking undue 4 advantage of the old age of the appellant, they called a meeting in the village and forcefully obtained the Rin Pustika from him. 5. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed as many as 5 issues and decided the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by analysing the evidence available on record. It observed that Bishambar Gond and Pusai Bai, both died issueless and the alleged adoption pleaded took place long back i.e. about more than 70 years ago, therefore, it is extremely difficult to obtain a clear evidence to establish the truth. Consequently, after examining the facts minutely and going through the evidence of the case and the conduct of the parties as also the evidence of the local people, on the basis of preponderance of probability, granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the same was affirmed in the First Appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, while detailing the foundation of the case, would submit that that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming possession of the subject property on the basis of alleged adoption and not long possession. He submits that mere long possession also does not confer any title. Hence, both the Courts committed an error in holding that only the plaintiffs are the joint title holders of the suit property by misreading the evidence. Lastly, learned counsel would submit that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree may be set-aside. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. Admittedly, the parties belong to the Gond tribal caste and the suit property belonged to Bishambar and after his death, his wife Pusai Bai 5 came into its possession. Both Bishambar and Pusai Bai died issueless. The plaintiffs alleged that their father Chaitram had been adopted by Bishambar and Pusai Bai as per the rituals prevailing in their Society, whereas, appellant/defendant No.1-Shyam Singh also claimed that he had been adopted by them. Defendant No.1 Shyam Singh utterly failed to establish his plea. 9. The trial Court observed that the adoption took place long back and after examining the evidence available on record minutely, it further observed that during the lifetime of Pusai Bai also, Chaitram resided with her and took care of her as also the subject property. Even there is a categorical admission of defendant No.1/appellant herein that after the death of Chaitram, the plaintiffs, in a partition, distributed the subject property among them. Thus, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the subject property. It has been further proved that the dispute arose only when the appellant, without impleading the plaintiffs, filed an application for mutation and in clandestine manner succeeded in mutating his name in the land record in respect of the subject property. When this fact came into the knowledge of the plaintiffs, they called a social meeting in the village and the appellant in the social meeting admitted his mistake and handed over the Rin Pustika to the plaintiffs. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence available on record, in my opinion, both the Courts have rightly drawn an inference on preponderance of probability in favour of the son of Chaitram (plaintiff) as the suit land continued to be in his possession even after the death of Pusai Bai, which had never been objected. 6 11. The dispute arose only when defendant No.1 got mutated his name in the land record in respect of the subject property in a secret manner. Even the brother of defendant No.1 namely Dukhwa (PW-5), who has been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, has supported the case of the plaintiffs by stating that Bishambar and Pusai Bai had adopted Chaitram as per the social customs that prevailed in their Society. Further, the said witness materially stated that during the lifetime of Bishambar and Pusai Bai, Chaitram took care of their properties and also looked after them. It was also stated by him that on the death of Bishambar, his last rites were also performed by Chaitram. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal as it involves no question of law   much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section100 of C.P.C.  and thus, it deserves to be dismissed in limine. 13.To conclude, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal, involving no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the C.P.C., fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna 7