1 2025:CGHC:35897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 488 of 2022 1 - Smt. Parvati Devi W/d Late Rohan Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Podipa, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raj Kumar Singh S/o Late Rohan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Podipa, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sahdev Singh S/o Late Rohan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village - Podipa, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gyan Singh S/o Late Rohan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Podipa, Tehsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Jugeshwar S/o Dallu Gond Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Podipa, Revenue Inspector Circle - Pilkha, Thana Gandhinagar, (Dehat Thana), Tehsil - Surajpur, Dis- trict Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattis- garh. --- Respondents For appellants : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.) JUDGMENT ON BOARD 24-7-2025 1 Heard on admission. 2 Appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short ‘the CPC’), against the Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.07.29 17:47:48 +0530 2 judgment and decree dated 21-7-2022 passed by the District Judge, Surajpur in Civil Appeal No. 5A/2021 upholding the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2021 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class 2, Surajpur Distt. Surajpur in Civil Suit No. 3A/2014, whereby plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of title and possession has been dismissed. (Hereinafter parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.) 3 Facts of the case in nutshell, as projected by the plaintiffs in their plaint are that, property mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ bearing old Khasra No. 380/2 area 0.049 hectare and Khasra No. 381/2 area 0.024 hectare total area 0.073 hectare, new Khasra No. 1527 area 0.10 RA, is ancestral property of original plaintiff Rohan, which he received through his father Sardar Gond after his death. In new bandobast, old Khasra numbers were merged and khasra number of the land was changed as Khasra No. 1527. In new bandobast, plaintiff’s land was reduced, for correction of which, he applied before the Bhu- Abhilekh Bandobast Adhikari (Truti Sudhar), Distt. Sarguja, Ambikapur on 10-4-2007. On inquiry with respect to application, the plaintiff came to know that on ancestral property of appellant bearing Khasra No. 380/2 area 0.049 hectare and 381/2 area 0.024 hectare, total area 0.073 hectare, the defendant No. 1 is in possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that, defendant No. 1 is in possession on the basis of mutation of the disputed land in his name done on the basis of forged documents of new Khasra No. 1527. 3 Therefore, the plaintiff filed instant civil suit for declaration of title and possession. 4 The defendant No. 1 Jugeshwar filed written statement denying the pleading made in the plaint. It is pleaded by him that there was settlement of disputed land in the name of Manjhi Gond, son of Dhupan Gond. Manjhi Gond died issueless, then Jagesar (son of Sardar and brother of plaintiff Rohan) and his brothers inherited the suit land. The land was mutually partitioned between them, in which, Jagesar, son of Sardar, got the suit land, who is brother of plaintiff. Jagesar sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 80/- in a stamp paper, on the basis of which, the suit land was mutated in the name of defendant no. 1 and after death of father, defendant No. 1 is residing on the suit land along with his family. Therefore, it is prayed that, since the the defendant No. 1 purchased the land from brother of the plaintiff, therefore, the suit may be rejected. 5 Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that, the suit land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with the plaint is ancestral property of the plaintiff, which was received by him at the time of Bandobast. But on the basis of forge and fabricated documents, the suit land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 1. The finding of the learned trial Court as well as 1st appellate Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land, is not sustainable, hence the instant appeal may be admitted for hearing. 4 6 When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the plaintiff as to whether plaintiff has proved renumbering document to prove the fact that the suit land mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ was earlier recorded in the name of plaintiff or his father, then he submitted that, no such document has been filed and proved. Thus, primary fact i.e. renumbering document has not been proved by the plaintiff by adducing relevant document. As per record, he was also not in possession over the suit land. 7 There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below in favour of defendants. Perusal of judgment rendered by learned trial Court and learned first appellate Court in the light of the evidence shows that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff in respect of his case, therefore, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in the present appeal. 8 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbiri Devi and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322, has held that interference with the concurrent findings in subsequent appeal can be made, if it is pointed out that it has been passed dehors the pleadings or based on no evidence or based on misreading of material evidence or against the provision of law etc. 9 In the instant case, renumbering document has not been proved by the plaintiff by adducing relevant document and he was also not in possession over the suit land. Therefore, considering the material 5 available on record of both the Courts below and the judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, in the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law is found to be formulated in the instant second appeal. Hence, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 10 Parties shall bear their own costs. 11 A decree be drawn accordingly. 12 Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-