2025:CGHC:49194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 07.07.2025 Pronounced on 25.09.2025 SA No. 70 of 2015 1 - Kapil S/o Chhedu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Patwari Halka Number 23, Revenue Circle Lawan, Police Station Kashdol, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar Revenue And Civil Distt. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Kamal Narayan S/o Chhedu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Patwari Halka Number 23, Revenue Circle Lawan, Police Station Kashdol, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar Revenue And Civil Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Appellants(s) versus 1 - Lakhan S/o Kuleshwar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Patwari Halka Number 23, Revenue Circle Lawan, Police Station Kashdol, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar Revenue And Civil Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 2 - Laxman S/o Kuleshwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Patwari Halka Number 23, Revenue Circle Lawan, Police Station Kashdol, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar Revenue And Civil Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. 3 - Bharat S/o Chhedu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Khatiyapati, Patwari Halka Number 23, Revenue Circle Lawan, Police Station Kashdol, Tahsil- Baloda Bazar Revenue And Civil Distt. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara C.G. , Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thru- Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara C.G. , Taluka : Bhatapara, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For R1to 3 : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.52-A/2012, whereby the learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 08.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 63-A/11 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction has been partly decreed. 2. The second appeal was admitted on 10.12.2015 by this Court on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the learned lower Appellate Court was justified in law in affirming decree in favour of plaintiffs reversing finding with regard to partition and granting decree in respect of the entire property in dispute by recording finding of partition ignoring the evidence on record that in the partition house was also partitioned between the predecessors of plaintiffs and defendants and that both plaintiffs and defendants are residing in the house in dispute ?” 3. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to hereinafter as per their description shown in the Civil Suit before the trial Court. 4. Brief facts:- A) The plaintiffs/appellants filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Balodabazar contending that Sadhu and Sudarshan were real brothers. The plaintiffs in the present suit are grandsons of Sadhu and defendants are grandsons of Sudarshan. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that there is agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 362 area 0.060 hectare wherein in 2 decimal of land a mud house is construed about 50 years ago and remaining part of land is used as courtyard and agricultural land Khasra number 517/1 area 0.235 hectare total area 0.295 hectare (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) were received to Sadhu, grandfather of plaintiffs in the partition and after his death, it was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Kuleshwar S/o Sadhu, father of plaintiffs and after his death in the year 1970-72, the land was inherited by the plaintiffs No. 01 and 02 and their mother Brindabai. B) It has been further contended that suit land is their ancestral property which is inherited from the plaintiff's grandfather Sadhu therefore, the plaintiffs have a right by birth. The defendants, in collusion with the revenue officers, secretly got their names registered on the land which is rightfully owned by the plaintiffs. After the death of the plaintiffs' mother Brindabai, the defendants started creating disputes about the house which has necessitated the plaintiffs to file present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the suit land. C) Defendants No. 1 and 3 have jointly submitted written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint admitting the Genealogy submitted by the plaintiffs with certain modification that Sadhu's wife Sonkuwar was married to Sudarshan after Sadhu's death as per Chudi Pratha prevailing in the State of Chhattisgarh and have denied the fact that the suit land has been partitioned between Sadhu and Sudarshan. The defendants further contended that there was no partition between them. Kuleshwar, in his lifetime, had sold his share of the suit land to his brother Chedu S/o Sudarshan on 10.04.1964. As far as Khasra No. 362, area 0.060 hectare is concerned, Chedu and Kuleshwar have equal share, therefore, 7 decimals of land has been inherited to the plaintiffs and 7½ decimals of land has been inherited to defendants No. 1 and 3. D) It has been contended that in the year 2006, partition of the property took place between defendant No. 1 Kapil and defendant No. 3 Kamalnarayan, the entire land Khasra No. 362/1 measuring 0.040 hectares and agricultural land Khasra No. 517/1 measuring 0.235 hectares were given to Kamalnarayan and Khasra No. 362/2 measuring 0.020 hectares and ancestral land Khasra No. 515/1 and 517/2 measuring 0.231 hectares were given to Kapil. As such, plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of title of the suit property and would pray for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No. 2 did not file written statement. E) The defendants No. 1 and 3 have also filed counter claim contending that defendants No. 1 and 3 are the title holders of half of the land bearing Khasra No. 362 area 0.060 hectare i.e. 0.030 hectare in which in two decimal area a mud house is situated which is in possession of defendants No. 1 and 3 wherein the plaintiffs are residing with the permission of father of defendants No. 1 and 3. When in the year 2011 the defendants asked them to handover the house, the plaintiffs refused them, as such, it has been prayed that defendants be declared as titleholder of the suit property and the plaintiffs in absence of possession or title of the suit property are not entitled to claim injunction. Page 6 of 10 F) On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. Learned trial Court considering the factual matrix of the case recorded its finding that sufficient evidence has not been placed on record regarding partition of the suit property, but so far as the mud house and courtyard built on Khasra No. 362, area 0.060 hectare are concerned, the evidence produced by the defendants shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property for a long period. It has also recorded its finding that Defendant No. 3 Kamalnaraya has stated that the suit house and courtyard have been given in partition to the plaintiffs’ father which proves that the plaintiffs are title holders of the mud house and courtyard situated in Khasra 362 Sq.m. measuring 0.060 ha. only. Learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that Plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over land bearing Khasra No. 517/1 measuring 0.235 hectares. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain decree of title of mud house and courtyard situated in land bearing Khasra No. 362 admeasuring 0.060 hectares therefore, the defendants are restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the mud house and courtyard situated in land bearing Khasra No. 362 admeasuring 0.060 hectares. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence has rejected the counter claim failed by the defendants. G) Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred civil appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar. Page 7 of 10 Learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the finding of the trial Court by re-appreciating the materials on record. Being aggrieved with both the judgments and decrees, the defendants have preferred present Second Appeal before this Court which has been admitted on the above stated substantial question of law framed by this Court 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Both the Courts below have rejected the claim of the defendants only on the basis of the admission of the defendants. Learned courts below have erred in not relying on Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/5 in which it has been shown that the disputed property relating to Khasra No. 362 belongs to the defendants only, therefore, he would pray for allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are strictly in accordance with law and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost satisfaction. 8. The record of the trial Court would demonstrate that the plaintiffs witness (PW/1) in his evidence adduced before trial Court with regard to partition taken place between Sadhu and Sudarshan and the land which has been partitioned between them has been received to Kuleshwar and Chedu remained unrebutted. He has also admitted that after death of Brindabai, mother of the plaintiffs in 2011, the dispute was started between plaintiffs and defendants. The same is further fortified from the admission of defendant No. 3 Kamalnaraya who has admitted in the cross- examination that partition between his grandfather Sudarshan and his brother Sadhu has already been taken place and he has also admitted that he is seeing plaintiffs are residing in the suit house from his childhood. He has also admitted that the suit house has been constructed since plaintiffs were residing in the suit house with their father Kuleshwar. He has voluntarily stated that the suit house has been received by the plaintiffs father at the time of partition. 9. The defendants’ witness DW/1 has stated in his examination-in -Chief by way of affidavit that the agreement was executed by Kuleshwar in his life time with regard to sell of his share of property to one Awadhram and he has executed an agreement with defendants’ father Chedu on 16.4.1964 wherein he has requested for deletion of his name and in the remaining land name of Chedu be recorded and he has no claim over the said property. The witness was cross-examined by the plaintiffs wherein he has admitted that it is not known to him as per Ex.D/1 Kuleshwar has sold this property to Chedu and he has admitted in the cross-examination that in the written statement in para 3 he has pleaded that Kuleshwar has sold the suit property on 16.04.1964. 10. From the evidence brought on record, it is quite vivid that the defendants themselves admitted that fact that in the partition the suit house was given to plaintiffs grandfather Sadhu and thereafter, it was inherited by Kuleshwar but the defendants have not been able to prove how the suit property has been sold by Kuleshwar and how he has allowed the mutation of the suit house and the land in the name defendants’ father. Even the defendants have not produced any sale-deed to demonstrate that a transfer of the suit property by sale has been made. These factual matrix are the parts of pleading made by them in the written statement as well as in their counter claim, therefore, it is incumbent upon them to plead and prove their averments by recording sufficient evidence which they miserably failed to prove, therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in decreeing the suit in part. 11. Thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in re-appreciating the evidence, materials and law. The learned first Appellate Court has rightly disbelieved the Ex. D/1 as if it is sale deed then as per the Section 17 of the Registration Act it should be registered document. In absence of any registration of the documents it has no evidentiary value. Even the defendants have not been able to prove how their names have been recorded in the revenue record. It is also well settled position of law that revenue record does not confer any title over the suit property, as such, it is incumbent upon the defendants to prove what is the source of recording their names in the suit property, therefore, learned first Appellate Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeal. 12. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence and materials on record have recorded their finding that plaintiffs are entitled to get declaration of title with regard to the suit property and injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, therefore, the substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves to be answered against the defendant-appellants and in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. 13. Consequently, the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order dated 10.12.2015 of status quo granted by this Court with regard to possession of the suit house /land is vacated. 14. No order as to costs. 15. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.09.26 11:07:06 +0530