1 (SA No. 518 of 2013) 2025:CGHC:31628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 518 of 2013 1 - Ganga Prasad S/o Late Nathel Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village - Pataura, Tah. Patan, Post- Utai, P.S. Utai, Distt. Durg C.G., Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, Durg, Distt. Office- Durg C.G., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant :- Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 09.07.2025 1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 (Annexure A/1) passed by the first appellate Court ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.07.14 11:09:14 +0530 2 (SA No. 518 of 2013) affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2012 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration of title and permanent injuction regarding land admeasuring area 1.61 acre of khasra no.27/1 (new khasra no.56), situated at village Machandur, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the “suit land”) holding that the plaintiff/appellant has failed to establish his title and possession over the suit land and, therefore, he is not entitled for declaration of title, against which this second appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the Courts have concurrently recorded that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of title and permanent injuction of the suit land as he has failed to produce any documents for the same, which is perverse and contrary to the records and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial question of law in this regard. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment and decree and submits that this second appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. 3 (SA No. 518 of 2013) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The two Court below have concurrently recorded a finding that the plaintiff have failed to establish his title over the suit land as he has failed to file documents demonstrating that he is the title-holder of the suit land. The said finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is neither perverse nor contrary to the records and it has rightly been held by the two Courts below that the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for declaration of title and permanent injuction over the suit land. As such, I do not find any substantial question of law for admission of this second appeal. 6. The second appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!