1 2025:CGHC:31588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 438 of 2022 1 - Premlal Sahu S/o Suklu Sahu Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village- Nawagaonkala, Post-Tipni, Tahsil-Than-Khamhariya, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramkishor Sahu S/o Premlal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Nawagaonkala, Tahsil-Than-Khamhariya, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2 - Hemlal @ Rajesh Sahu S/o Premlal Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Village-Nawagaonkala, Tahsil-Than-Khamhariya, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemin Bai D/o Premlal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Nawagaonkala, Tahsil-Than-Khamhariya, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Shatruhan Sahu S/o Premlal Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Nawagaonkala, Tahsil-Than-Khamhariya, District-Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondents : None (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.7.2022, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bemetara District – Bemetara 2 (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2021 upholding the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Saja, District – Bemetara (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2019, whereby civil suit filed by appellant / plaintiff for declaration of nullity of sale-deed dated 21.3.2013 by declaring his title and grant of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by the trial Court. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court]. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff granted share in form of partition of the suit land to his sons Ramkishor Sahu and Hemlal @ Rajesh Sahu, who were born from his second wife. Plaintiff partitioned his suit land by executing two registered sale-deeds dated 21.3.2013 in respect of Khasra No.837/2 rakba 0.42 hectare, khasra No.835/2 rakba 0.42 hectare and Khasra No.835/3 rakba 0.40 hectare in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2, but, while doing so, defendant No.1 and 2 fraudulently got signature of plaintiff in third sale-deed dated 21.3.2013 in respect of suit land bearing Khasra No.185/3 rakba 0.08 hectare. He further submits that the plaintiff is a villager, who is less educated and has signed on two sale-deeds which he is not disputing, but, in garb of that two sale-deeds, defendant no.1 & 2 also obtained his signature on the third sale-deed in respect of suit land which he has not executed at all. It is also submitted that plaintiff has also not obtained any sale consideration against that third sale-deed (Ex P8). Aforesaid act of fraud committed by defendant No.1 and 2 has also been proved by plaintiff and his wife (mother of defendant No.1, 2 & 3), despite that, learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has declined to accept their evidence, hence, dismissal of civil suit by both 3 the Courts below is against the evidence available on record, hence, learned counsel for appellant submits that this appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 4. In the instant case, sale-deed (Ex P8) executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 namely Ramkishor and Hemlal @ Rajesh is being disputed by plaintiff, but, the same is registered sale deed in which plaintiff himself has admitted that he has received all the sale consideration and he has signed the same by his own freewill and conscious. If there would have been any fraud, then plaintiff ought to have examined independent witness or witnesses of sale-deed (Ex. P8) but none of such witness have been examined by the plaintiff. 5. It is settled law that registered sale-deed is presumed to be executed in accordance with law, if any adverse thing is claimed, then it has to be proved by the claimant by adducing clinching evidence, but, in this case, plaintiff has neither examined any independent witness nor examined witness of registered sale deed (Ex.P8), therefore, both the Courts below have not committed any error in disbelieving evidence of plaintiff and his wife that sale deed (Ex. P8) has been got executed by defendants No. 1 & 2 by playing any fraud with the plaintiff. 6. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this appeal. Consequently, second appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No cost(s). 7. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi