1 2025:CGHC:37454 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 406 of 2019 1. Bhukhan Singh Verma (Died) Through His Legal Representatives As Per The Hon'ble Court's Order Dated 19-08-2020 1.1 - Ramavatar S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village Kewanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Gangadhar S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 40 Years Resident Of Village Kewanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - Harman S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Kewanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - Heman S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village Kewanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1.5 - Hem Singh S/o Bhukhan Singh Verma Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Kewanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - Nirmala Bai W/o Satturam Verma Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Bahera, Thasil And District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants(s) versus SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.19 12:36:15 +0530 2 1 - Kaushilya Bai Verma D/o Kejau Verma Aged About 48 Years Caste Kurmi, R/o Kurmipara, Ward No. 17, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Kushal Verma Aged About 48 Years Caste Kurmi. Cultivator, R/o Village Kawanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rohit Kumar Verma S/o Kushal Verma Aged About 35 Years Caste Kurmi. Cultivator, R/o Village Kawanchhi, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 31/07/2025 1. The appellant has preferred the first appeal under Section 96 CPC being aggrieved with judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No. B/01/2017 by which learned trial court has allowed mesne profits for the damage caused to the plaintiff due to illegal possession of the suit property admeasuring .69 hectare which is Dhana land and .77 hectare unproductive land to the tune of Rs. 47,500/- for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 which comes to Rs. 1,42,500/- by the defendant No.1 2 and 3. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff is the widow of late Barun. Defendant No. 1 is brother of Barun and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are nephews of Barun. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition mainly 3 contending that the suit property is an ancestral property and she being widow of late Barun, is entitled to inherit the suit property to the extent of share of her husband which was registered as Civil Suit No. 152 of 1984. 3. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.07.1984 has decreed the suit and directed for partition of suit property and granted 1/6th share to her. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the defendants have filed FA No. 43 of 2002 which was dismissed on 09.03.2002 by learned Additional District Judge, Bemetara. 4. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of first appeal, the defendants have preferred second appeal before this Court which has been dismissed on 07.09.2011. Thereafter she has filed the suit for mesne profits reiterating the facts mentioned above and also contended that the land in question is agricultural and semi agricultural land and the defendants are earning Rs. 95,000/- per month from the said land out of which 50% expenses incurred for doing agricultural work, therefore, she is entitled to get profit of Rs. 47,500/- which has been retained by the defendants unauthorizedly, therefore, she claimed for mesne profit of Rs. 1,42,500/- for the year 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is also contended that the plaintiff has claimed that the defendants be directed to submit profit and loss account after 2011- 12 before the Court. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has decreed the suit and directed for mesne profits of Rs. 1, 42,500/-. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree the defendants have preferred this appeal. 4 6. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the evidence as no material was placed on record to substantiate the quantum of mesne profits which is paramount consideration for recording such finding. She would further submit that on earlier occasion when she filed the suit for declaration and partition no such relief was claimed, therefore, present suit claiming mesne profit is not maintainable before the trial Court and would pray for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that judgment and decree passed by the trial court is legal, justified which does not warrant interference by this court. He would further submit that quantum of mesne profits assessed by the trial court is legal and justified and on the basis of law and fact as the Government of chhattisgarh has enhanced the support price of paddy to the tune of Rs 3200 per quintal as on today and in the year 2011-12, support price of paddy was Rs 1400-1500 per quintal. He would further submit that defendants have produced 15 quintal paddy from the field, therefore, the assessment done by the trial Court is based on relevant facts and material and in fact no rebuttal to such finding was done by the respondent, as such it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to quantum of mesne profits is perverse illegal and liable to be interfered by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Considering the fact, it is not in dispute that earlier the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and possession which has been decreed on 23.07.1984 5 by granting 1/6th share, thereafter, first appeal was preferred by the defendants which has also been dismissed on 09.03.2002 against which the Second appeal was also preferred before this Court and this Court has dismissed the second appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 as such, judgment and decree passed by the Courts below has attained finality despite that execution proceedings have taken such a longer time to enjoy the fruits of decree passed by the Court and by making unusual excuse they have delayed the proceedings which is nothing but highhandedness of the defendants. This has compelled the plaintiff to claim mesne profits for illegal possession of the suit property. 10. Further considering the fact that the plaintiff has produced the evidence, material on record to establish the production capacity of the agricultural land which has been illegally possessed by defendants. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff has recorded its finding which cannot be said to be suffers from perversity or illegality or contrary to the material on record. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. 11. The appellant is directed to satisfy the decree, if has not been executed within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No order as to the cost. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh 6