1 2025:CGHC:40873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 547 of 2023 Sakun S/o Govind Teli Aged About 50 Years Cultivator, R/o Village Ahilda, Patwari Halka No.25, Revenue Circle And Up-Tahsil Lawan, Tahsil Baloudabazar, District Baloudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Kagajram S/o Karmu Satnami Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Ahilda, Patwari Halka No.25, Revenue Circle And Up-Tahsil Lawan, Tahsil Baloudabazar, District Baloudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baloudabazar, District Baloudabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) 3 - Santosh S/o Kagajram Satnami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Ahilda, Patwari Halka No.25, Revenue Circle And Up-Tahsil Lawan, Tahsil Baloudabazar, District Baloudabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Mandvi Bharadwaj, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 13.8.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant (defendant in Civil Suit No.31A/14 and plaintiff in Civil Suit No.33A/14) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2023 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Second Upper District Judge, Baloda Bazar (CG) in Civil Appeal No.7/2019, upholding judgment and decree (common) dated BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.08.14 16:29:21 +0530 2 29.4.2019 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No.31A/14 & 33A/14. 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that, respondent No.1 Kagajram filed Civil Suit No.31A/14 for getting vacant possession in respect of land bearing Khasra No.1490/23 area 0.093 hectare, situated at Gram Ahilda, PH No.29, Revenue Circle Lavan, Tahsil Baloda Bazar (hereinafter referred as ‘the suit land’), stating inter alia that the suit land was given to him by the Government, because he is member of Scheduled Caste. In the year 2007, when he was in financial crisis, he borrowed Rs.70,000/- from appellant Sakun and in return, he leased out the suit land to Sakun for cultivation for 05 years. But after 5 years appellant Sakun refused to return the possession and constructed a house on it and also refused to give up the possession. Hence, he filed civil suit for getting vacant possession of the suit land. 4. Appellant/defendant Sakun filed his his written statement stating inter alia that on 17.01.2007, respondent No.1/plaintiff Kagaj Ram had sold him the suit land through an unregistered sale deed for ₹ 70,000, for which an agreement was also executed, after which the appellant has been occupying the land and has built a house in a part of it and is living there since then. It is pleaded that at the time of execution of sale deed, it was decided that respondent No.1 Kagaj Ram would register the land in favour of the appellant, but he did not register it and after the price of the land increased, respondent No.1 Kagaj Ram, out of greed, has filed a false claim against appellant Sakun, due to which, the appellant filed a separate suit bearing Civil Suit No.33A/14 for grant permanent injunction as he has been in possession since 2007. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 05 issues in Civil Suit No.31A/14 and framed 02 issues in Civil Suit No.33A/14, recorded evidence of both the parties. Since the suit land the party in both the cases were same and the conclusion of one case was to be the opposite conclusion for the other case, therefore, after considering the evidence by the parties, dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant Sakun and directed him to return 3 vacant possession of the suit land to Kagaj Ram by allowing Civil Suit No.31A/14 filed by Kagaj Ram and Santosh (respondents No.1& 3 herein). The learned first appellate Court upheld the finding recorded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 25.4.2023, hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in both the civil suits, the disputed land, i.e. the suit land is same, which is recorded in the name of Kagajram in the revenue record. He had sold the same by an unregistered sale deed dated 17.01.2007 (Ex-D/1) to appellant Sakun for sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter appellant Sakun is in possession since 2007 and subsequently, he constructed house on it. But respondent No.1 Kagajram and his son respondent No.3 Santosh filed Civil Suit No.31A/14 for getting vacant possession of the suit land and appellant Sakun filed Civil Suit No.33A/14 for grant of injunction as he has been in possession of it since 2007. But the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant Sakun and directed him to return vacant possession of the suit land by allowing Civil Suit No.31A/14 filed by Kagaj Ram and Santosh (respondents No.1& 3 herein). Learned counsel further submits that since respondent No.1 Kagaj Ram had sold the suit land to the appellant for a huge sale consideration of Rs.70,000/- and he is in possession also, therefore, the appellant is entitled to secure his possession. But the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court, without considering the aforesaid aspects in its true perspective, has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant Sakun and allowed the civil suit filed by Kagaj Ram and Santosh, which is perverse and illegal, hence it is prayed that this appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 3 would submit that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts below, which is well reasoned and based on evidence, hence, it does not call for any interference by this Court. He would further submit that there is no question of law involved herein, rather the question of law proposed by the appellant is completely based on factual aspects of 4 the matter, which has been categorically dealt with by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate court, hence, the appeal is not deserved to be admitted. 8. Learned counsel for the State submits that State is a formal party in this appeal. 9. Undisputedly, appellant Sakun had obtained the suit land from respondent No.1 Kagaj Ram. As per revenue record, i.e. Rin Pustika (Ex-P/1), Kisthbandi Khatoni of 2018-19 (Ex-P/2) and Khasra Panchshala of 2012-13 (Ex-D/4 ), the suit land is recorded in the name of respondent Kagaj Ram. Thus, he is having better right and possession of the suit land than the appellant Sakun. It is the case of appellant Sakun that he had purchased the suit land vide unregistered sale deed dated 17.01.2007 (Ex-D/1) and the same was executed for alleged sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-. In that view of the matter, it must have registered as provided under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 and Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, but since it is not registered, it is not a valid document to transfer title of the suit land from respondent No.1 Kagaj Ram to appellant Sakun, whereas, respondent Kagaj Ram is recorded owner of the suit land. The issue involved in the instant case has been dealt with by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court in detail on the basis of evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. In view of the above discussion, no question of law is found to be involved in the instant appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 11. A Decree be drawn accordingly. 12. Records of both the Courts below be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini