1 SA No. 547 of 2025 2026:CGHC:6232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 547 of 2025 Smt. Lakeshwari Sinha W/o Shri Shivlal Sinha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Girola, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant Versus 1 - Smt. Rambati Baghel W/o Late Debra Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Girola, Tehsil And District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Renu Kochar and Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, Advocates For State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 04/02/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant, the appellant herein, assailing the judgment and decree dated 10/09/2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11A/2025 (Smt. Lakeshwari Sinha v. Smt. Rambati Baghel & Anr.) by the learned Additional District Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon. By RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.06 10:42:15 +0530 2 SA No. 547 of 2025 the said judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13/12/2024 passed in Civil Suit No. 01-A/2020 (Smt. Ramvati Baghel v. Smt. Lakeshwari Sinha & Anr.) by the learned II Civil Judge Senior Division, Kondagaon (C.G.) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. (a) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land situated at Village Masora bearing Khasra Nos. 255/1, 411/1 and 411/2, total area admeasuring 7.00 acres pleading, inter alia, that the suit land was originally allotted in the year 1958 in favour of Pandu, son of Chandar, caste Ganda, by order dated 23.10.1958 passed by the District Head, Bastar, in Revenue Case No. 70/A-15/57-58, as Pandu was landless and the allotment was made for the purpose of livelihood and maintenance. After the death of Pandu, the suit land was mutated in the name of Debra, son of Budhram, and his name was recorded in the revenue records on 12.01.1971. Debra, along with his wife/the plaintiff Ramwati remained in cultivating possession of the suit property. Due to old age and physical infirmity, Debra had given the suit land on adhiya (share- cropping) basis to Shivalal Sinha, son of Uday Sinha, about two years prior to his death, who used to pay half of the agricultural produce to Debra and the plaintiff for their livelihood. It was further pleaded that 3 SA No. 547 of 2025 Debra died on 07.05.2018 at Village Girola. After his death, when the plaintiff demanded her share of the crop from Shivalal Sinha, he refused and claimed that he had purchased the suit land. Thereupon, the plaintiff obtained certified copies of the sale deed and revenue records and came to know that Shivalal Sinha had got an illegal, fraudulent and fabricated sale deed executed in favour of his wife, Smt. Lakheshwari Sinha, in respect of the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that her husband Debra was illiterate, used to put thumb impressions, had no knowledge of legal formalities and, due to old age and illness, was not in a sound mental condition. It was alleged that taking undue advantage of his condition, the defendants fraudulently procured the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, she came to know about the said sale deed only on 05.11.2019 upon receiving its certified copy. (b) The defendants filed their written statement denying all allegations of fraud and illegality. It was contended that Debra was the absolute owner of the suit land and his name was duly recorded in the revenue records as landholder. It was further pleaded that the sale deed was executed by Debra during his lifetime with full knowledge and free consent and that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale transaction from the very date of execution. The defendants asserted that the sale deed was lawful, valid and binding upon the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. (c) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues on 03.07.2023 and, upon appreciation of the evidence on 4 SA No. 547 of 2025 record, allowed the suit. The learned Trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 04.02.2017 was obtained by playing fraud upon Debra, who was an illiterate and aged person and was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction. It was further held that the execution of the sale deed was not voluntary and was vitiated by misrepresentation and deceit. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff was the sole surviving legal heir of Debra and, therefore, entitled to succeed to the suit property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Consequently, the plaintiff was held entitled to declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land from the defendant. The valuation of the suit and payment of court- fee were also found to be proper and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by declaring the sale deed dated 04.02.2017 as illegal, null and void, and by granting declaration of title and possession in favour of the plaintiff. (d) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred a first appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present Second Appeal raises substantial questions of law inasmuch as the plaintiff, who was not an executant of the registered sale deed, could not have maintained a suit challenging its validity on the ground of alleged non- payment of consideration, particularly when the actual executant, 5 SA No. 547 of 2025 namely her husband, never disputed the transaction during his lifetime. It is further submitted that the findings of fraud and non-payment of consideration recorded by the both the Courts are based solely on the contradictory testimony of the plaintiff’s witness (PW-2), who himself was a witness to the sale deed, and such findings therefore amount to perverse findings of fact, warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission and have carefully perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts as well as the material available on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to the examination of substantial questions of law. Interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts is permissible only where such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or founded on an erroneous application of law. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced, this Court does not find that the present appeal satisfies the aforesaid parameters. 7. The contention of the appellant/defendant that the plaintiff, not being an executant of the registered sale deed, could not maintain the suit is devoid of merit. The suit was not based merely on the allegation of non- payment of consideration but was founded on specific pleadings of fraud, misrepresentation and deceit practised upon the executant, who 6 SA No. 547 of 2025 was found to be an aged and illiterate person incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction. The plaintiff, being the sole Class-I legal heir of the deceased executant, was legally competent to question the validity of the sale deed after his death. The mere fact that the executant did not challenge the transaction during his lifetime does not preclude the legal heir from assailing a transaction which has been found, on evidence, to be vitiated at its inception. 8. The submission that the findings of fraud and non-payment of consideration are based solely on the testimony of PW-2 is also not borne out from the record. Both the Courts have arrived at their conclusions on a cumulative appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, admissions elicited in cross-examination, conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances, including the age, illiteracy and physical condition of the executant. The testimony of PW- 2 has been considered in conjunction with other material on record, and cogent reasons have been assigned for accepting the plaintiff’s case and rejecting the defence version. The concurrent findings do not suffer from perversity nor can they be said to be based on no evidence. 9. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant essentially seek re- appreciation of evidence and substitution of this Court’s view for that concurrently taken by both the Courts, which is impermissible in a Second Appeal. 10. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shiv Dayal and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 637, 7 SA No. 547 of 2025 that interference in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are shown to be based on misreading of material evidence, contrary to pleadings, or such as no reasonable judicial mind could have arrived at. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer from any such infirmity. 11. In substance, the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant amount to an invitation to this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence and substitute its own conclusions for those concurrently reached by both the Courts. Such an exercise squarely falls outside the permissible scope of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Upon an overall consideration of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court are reasoned, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and in consonance with settled principles of law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. 13. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri