1 2025:CGHC:37073 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 611 of 2022 1 - Ramjilal S/o Bhondu Lodhi Aged About 56 Years R/o Vill.-Chipa, Tah.- Dongergarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Bhuneshwari Verma D/o Mahesh Kumar Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Shankarpur Ward, Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Rikhiram S/o Budhram R/o Vill.-Chipa, Tah.-Dongergarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Mandavi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 100 read with Section 103 and Order 42 Rule 1 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-2022 passed by the learned Upper District Judge, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 6A/2020, upholding the judgment and decree dated 29-2-2020 passed by the Civil Judge Class 1, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, for Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.04 12:05:20 +0530 2 declaration of his title and granting permanent injunction by declaring sale deed dated 26-5-2014 executed by Rikhiram/defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 Bhuneshwari, null and void, has been dismissed. (Hereafter, parties shall be referred to as per their description before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case in nutshell, as projected in the plaint, are that, the land measuring 2.46 acre of Khasra No. 496, land 0.016 ARE of Khasra No. 71 and land 0.004 ARE of Khasra No. 419, total Khasra No. 3, area 0.631 hectare (2.45 acre) situated village Chheepa, Patwari Halka No. 10, was received by Bhondu, who is father of plaintt, in partition. The plaintiff Ramjilal is cultivating the disputed land area 1 acre out of 0.631 hectare, which was received by him in partition with his brother. It is further pleaded in the plaint that, plaintiff’s father, plaintiff or his brother could not mutate the land in their name received by plaintiff’s father Bhondu in partition with his brothers, but plaintiff and his brother are cultivating the land of their respective share in the land 0.631 hectare. On 24-5-2014, plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 2 Rikhiram with the help of his brother Pratap, is trying to sell the disputed land to Mahesh, who is son-in-law of defendant No. 2 Rikhiram. Then, the plaintiff filed objection before concerned Dy. Registrar, despite that, but registered sale deed of land area 1 acre of plaintiff was executed in favour of defendant No. 1 Bhuneshwari on 26-5-2014. The defendant No. 1 and her husband have threatened the plaintiff not to come in their land. Hence the 3 plaintiff filed instant civil suit seeking relief as has been mentioned above. 4. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement stating inter alia that, the suit land was partitioned by Shobharam and the suit land was fallen in the share of Milau (son of Shobharam). After death of Milau, it was sold vide registered sale deed by his wife Bisahin and daughter Rukmani to defendant No. 2, 35 – 37 years prior, thereafter, defendant No. 2 is in possession over the suit land, hence, the suit is liabile to be rejected. 5. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, learned trial Court framed 4 issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the evidence and contention of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit. The civil appeal preferred against the judgment of the trial Court, was also dismissed by the Upper District Judge, Dongargarh by the impugned judgment, against which, instant second appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, both the parties are family members and partition was effected between 4 sons of late Shobharam, in which, 1 acre land (suit land) out of area 2.46 acre of land of Khasra No. 496 was fallen in share of Bhondu, father of plaintiff. After death of Bhondu, the suit land was fallen in the share of plaintiff Ramjilal in family partition with his brother and sister. Thus, plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since more than 20 years, but defendant No. 2 Rikhiram executed registered sale deed of suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 Bhuneshwar taking undue advantage of the fact that, the suit land was recorded in the name of Rikhiram, 4 whereas in family partition, it was fallen in the share of Bhondu (father of plaintiff). It is further submitted that, aforesaid fact has been proved by the plaintiff by adducing oral evidence, but the same has not been relied upon by the trial Court, which is against the law. Hence, the appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 7. When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the plaintiff as to whether, in the partition effected between Bhondu and his brothers, the suit land was recorded in the name of Bhondu and subsequently, in the name of plaintiff Ramjilal, he submits that, the suit land was not recorded in the name of plaintiff or his father, rather it was kept recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 Rikhiram. Thus, since there is no credible documentary evidence to prove the fact that, the suit land was fallen in the share of Bhondu and subsequently, his son Ramjilal (plaintiff), then, only on the basis of vague oral evidence of plaintiffs’ witnesses, how it can be held that, plaintiff is absolute owner of the suit land and having possession over it. 8. Since no reliable document has been filed and proved by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim and as the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as well as 1st appellate Court is based on well appreciation of evidence available on record, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned 1st appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiff. 9. In view of above, no substantial question of law is found to be framed in instant second appeal. Hence, instant second appeal is dismissed at 5 admission stage, upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as 1st appellate Court. 10. In view of above, instant second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to cost(s). 11. Decree be drawn accordingly. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak