1 2025:CGHC:27193 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 496 of 2015 1. Vinam S/o Jaggu, Aged About 70 Years Caste- Uraon, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Civil District And Revenue District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Defendant No. 1, Chhattisgarh 2. Ishwar S/o Nansai, Aged About 65 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Civil District And Revenue District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Defendant No. 3, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Kamal Uraon S/o Bhikha Uraon, Aged About 50 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Sundar Uraon S/o Bhikha Uraon, Aged About 50 Years Caste, Uraon, R/o Batwahi, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, Plaintiffs, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. Ajub S/o Ishwar, Aged About 26 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Lundra, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4. Harun Uraon S/o Ishwar, Aged About 24 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Lundra, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5. Jem Uraon S/o Ishwar, Aged About 22 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Lundra, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6. Ajay Uraon S/o Gossner Uraon, Aged About 26 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Lundra, MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.07.16 12:08:37 +0530 2 District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7. Sudhir Uraon S/o Gossner Uraon, Aged About 24 Years Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Batwahi, Police Station- Ambikapur, Tahsil- Lundra, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 24.06.2025 1. The appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District - Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 6- A/2014 by which the appeal filed by the defendants has been dismissed against the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-I Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 45-A/2013 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and possession has been allowed. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that: (a) The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and mens rea of profit mainly contending that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1099/1 area 0.980 hectare situated at village Batwahi, Patwari Halka No. 10, Tehsil - Lundra, District - Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred as to “suit land”). It is also the case of the plaintiff that the suit land 3 has been acquired by the plaintiff through succession by his father late Bhikha @ Bhikham. The said land was allotted to his father by the State Government in revenue case No. 133-1- 5/1954-55. He was in possession of the suit land and doing agricultural work, thereafter, the defendants jointly and severely interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and started creating hindrance and also raising dispute to cut the crops. Therefore, he has done demarcation of the said land before the Tehsildar and accordingly boundaries have been fixed, still they have harvested the crops of the plaintiff which has necessitated him to file FIR before the Police Station as well as filing of the civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 61-A/2005 wherein he has prayed for permanent injunction. (b) The learned trial Court has dismissed the same by recording its finding that the suit for injunction cannot be granted as the plaintiff is not in possession of entire suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed present civil suit mainly contending that the respondents started making declaration that since he has lost the civil suit, therefore, they have become title holder of the suit property. Accordingly, he has prayed for declaration of title on the suit property, injunction, and mens rea profit and also prayed for return of possession. (c) The defendants appeared before the trial Court and have stated that the suit land has also been given to them by the State Government through the sale deed and they are having the suit property bearing Khasra No. 1099/1 and since they have also owned the said land adjacent land given to the 4 appellant and no demarcation has been prayed for, therefore, it cannot be considered that they have encroached the property and have prayed for rejection of the plaint. (d) Learned trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties has framed issues and after appreciating the evidence and material on record has allowed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 10.12.2013. The trial Court has recorded its finding in paragraph 10 that while deciding the issue No. 1 the plaintiff has produced documents to establish the decree of declaration and no rebuttal evidence has been produced by the defendant, therefore, it has been held that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that the defendants have made an attempt to claim title over the suit property on the strength of adverse possession through their counter claim, but the basic requirement of adverse possession has not been proved and accordingly, counter claim has been rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved with this order, the defendants have preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court who vide impugned judgment and decree has dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree recorded by the trial Court. The learned appellate Court has recorded its finding in paragraph 14 that with regard to land bearing Khasra No. 1099/1 there is no dispute, but dispute pertains to 0.1 acre which is adjacent to the land bearing Khasra No. 1099/4 belongs to defendants. It has also recorded its finding that the plaintiff has taken a specific plea that in the year 2002 during pendency of Civil Suit 5 No. 61-A/2005 they have been dispossessed by the defendants whereas the defendants have taken stand that they are in possession of this portion of the property since 1954-55 and on the basis of adverse possession they have claimed title, but no such document regarding possession has been submitted before the trial Court. The learned first appellate Court has also recorded its finding that the defendants have not produced any authenticated demarcation report by examining the witness and accordingly, it has disbelieved the witness examined by the defendants. Consequently, it has rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved with this rejection of first appeal, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the submission taken before the trial Court and would also submit that since no demarcation has been done, therefore, it cannot be said that the identification has rightly been done. Thus, he would submit that on this count alone the substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, thus, he would pray for admission of the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 5. From the record requisitioned by this Court, it is quite vivid that no application to demarcation of land by way of Commissioner has been made by the defendants and this plea has been taken by the defendants for the first time without any legal foundation. Similarly, the trial Court on the basis of material and also recording its concurrent finding of the facts that the plaintiff has filed the documents to establish his title over the suit land whereas the 6 defendants are unable to prove their title and for rebuttal of the contentions made by the plaintiff no document has been produced by them. Thus, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit and thereafter, the appellate Court has rightly affirmed the same, as such, there is concurrent finding of the facts regarding title of the plaintiff, therefore, no substantial question of law is required to be determined by this Court. 6. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the second appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself as no substantial question of law exists which is required to be determined for admission of appeal. No order as to costs. 7. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish