1 2025:CGHC:36964 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 390 of 2020 Kriparam S/o Bhauram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bodsara , Tahsil Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Kirtan S/o Bhauram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bodsara , Tahsil Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.…. (Defendant No.1) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 29.7.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.3.2020 (Annexure-A/1) passed by District Judge, Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Civil Appeal No.1A/2020, upholding judgment and decree dated 06.12.2019 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.66A/2017. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.31 15:32:28 +0530 2 per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that, plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of his title and getting possession in respect of land situated at Village Bodsara, Tahsil Janjgir bearing Khasra No.437 area 2 ½ decimal and ½ decimal aabdi land, total 3 decimal and a house constructed on it (henceforth called ‘the suit property’), stating inter alia that, Bhauram, who was father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had purchased land bearing Khasra No.437 area 2 ½ decimal, situated at village Bodsara Tahsil Janjgir from Bhurthu on 01.6.1975 for Rs.575/- through an unregistered sale deed. Some time after the sale Bhurthu died, therefore, registered sale deed could not be executed. Bhauram also got ½ decimal of aabadi land from his father. After the death of Bhauram, the plaintiff and his brother/defendant No.1 received Khasra No.437 area 2 ½ decimal and ½ decimal aabdi land, total 3 decimal, as heirs of Bhauram. Partition took place between the brothers and after partition, plaintiff got the suit property and thereafter he constructed a house on it. Since defendant No.1 was not having a house to live, on his request, the plaintiff gave the house to defendant No.1 for one year till March 2016. However, after one year, defendant No.1 refused to vacate the suit property. Hence, he filed civil suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and getting possession of suit property (house) from defendant No.1. 4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the pleading of the plaintiff. 5. Based on the pleading of the respective parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 02 issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding therein that the plaintiff has failed to prove that land bearing Khasra No.437 area 2 ½ decimal and aabadi land adjoining to it of area ½ decimal, 3 total 3 decimal and the house built on it, situated at Village Bodsara, Tahsil Janjgir, are owned by the plaintiff. The learned first appellate Court upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 03.3.2020, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of his title and getting possession of the suit property, which was purchased by his father vide unregistered sale deed dated 01.6.1975 from its original owner Bhurthu and thereafter his father was in possession over the said land and the plaintiff had constructed a house in some portion of it. After the death of Bhauram, the suit property fell under the share of the plaintiff in partition held between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who is his brother. He further submits that the plaintiff has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence, but both the Courts below have declined to accept those evidence, which is perverse and illegal, hence, instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that State is a formal party in this appeal. 8. The plaintiff is claiming his title over the suit property on the basis of unregistered sale deed (Ex-P/4) worth Rs.575/- executed by Bhurthu, who was original owner of Khasra No.437 area 2 ½ decimal. Ex-P/1 is Adhikar Abhilekh, which also demonstrate the fact that Bhurthu was the original owner of the aforesaid land, but no valid document has been filed by the plaintiff to prove the fact that the suit land was purchased by his father vide registered sale deed. Unregistered sale deed does not transfer valid title over the land of transaction. Even otherwise, if it was purchased by Bhauram (father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1) then after purchasing the same, he would have been in possession of it since 1975, and certainly the suit land 4 would have been mutated in his/their names in the revenue records and they would have been shown in possession of it, but no such revenue document has been filed or proved by the plaintiff to substantiate his contention that he is the owner of the suit property through his father. 9. A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court shows that it has been passed after due appreciation of the evidence available on record, which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. As such, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the instant appeal, hence the same is dismissed. 10. Thus, since no question of law is found to be framed, the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 11. A Decree be drawn accordingly. 12. Records of both the Courts below be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini