1 2025:CGHC:14480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A No.859 of 2019 Mukhni Bai W/o Dukalha Chandrakar, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Bano, Sub Tahsil Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Mukhiram S/o Shri Jodhan Aged About 60 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Jhirna, P. H. No. 18/13, Tahsil Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) 2 - Rajim Bai Wd/o Arjun Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Gopal Bhawna, Village Jhalmala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 3 - Amrit Bai W/o Ramkumar Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o Jhirna , Tahsil Kawardha , District Kabirdham Chhatisgarh. 4 - Gouri Bai W/o Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 48 Years R/o Devgaon, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nandini Bai W/o Chaitram Chandrakar Aged About 45 Years R/o Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.03.27 13:43:06 +0530 2 Bisanpura, Police Station Pipariya, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kaliram S/o Dukalu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Gopal Bhawan, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 7 - Baliram S/o Dukalu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Gopal Bhawna, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kabirdham , District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh....(Defendant No 2 To 8) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri HB Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Smt Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri DR Minj, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 26.03.2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham in Civil Appeal No.25-A/2016, which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Kawardha, District Kabirdham in Civil Suit No.142-A/2014 whereby, the civil suit filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 was decreed and the cross suit filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.1 was dismissed and while dismissing the Appeal, the judgment passed by the trial Court was affirmed. 3 2. Henceforward, the parties herein shall be referred to as per their description before the Courts below. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Respondents No.1 and his mother have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction by making an averment inter alia that there was a registered partition amongst Raimun Bai, father of the Appellant namely Bhuvneshwar and father of the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 namely Jodhan for the land situated at village Jhirna and the said property was mentioned in the plaint as Annexure -'d'. Vide partition deed dated 09.09.1976, Jodhan was given 6.50 acres, father of the Appellant/Defendant was given 0.55 acres and Raimun Bai, D/o Late Ramavtar was given 0.97 acres. It has been averred that in the year 1973, Ramavtar, Bhuvneshwar and Jodhan were having 9.95 acres land at village Jhirna whereas, in the name of Ramavtar, 0.48 acres was received. It has been further averred that on 30.07.1973, a registered gift deed was executed in favour of Raimun Bai, Rajim Bai, the Appellant herein and Sumitra Bai (Ex.P-1). The Appellant has sold Khasra No.46/2 admeasuring 0.50 acres, which she received by way of a gift deed, to the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1-Mukhiram by executing a registered sale deed on 23.12.1976 (Ex.P-4) and similarly, father of the Appellant namely Bhuvneshwar has also sold his share i.e. Khasra No.203/2 admeasuring 0.55 acres to the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 by way of executing a registered sale deed on 29.04.1991 (Ex.P-2). The Revenue Court i.e. the Naib Tahsildar has wrongly mutated the name of the 4 Appellant-Mukhni Bai as joint owner of the said land. Hence, the present civil suit has been filed. 4. The Appellant, in her written statement, has denied the averments of the plaint and contended that there was no partition amongst her father and his brothers and she has averred that the registered partition deed (Ex.P-20) and both the sale deeds (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-4) are forged and null and void and accordingly, a counter suit has been filed. The other daughter of Bhuvneshwar namely Rajim Bai and his widow Sukala Bai remained ex parte during the trial and did not file any written statement. The Appellant has, in her written statement, stated that her mother Sukala Bai and her sister Rajim Bai, after receiving their share admeasuring area 0.72 acres, have relinquished their right and it has been further averred by her that her father has received a share of about 3.40 acres and for the remaining land of 2.68 acres, she sought declaration of her share, partition and separate possession. 5. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 9 issues. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1-Mukhiram has examined himself, Chandrika Chandravanshi (PW-2) and Ram Kishore Kesharwani (PW-3) and exhibited 20 documents vide (Ex.P-1 to P-20). The Appellant/Defendant No.1 has examined herself, Mohammad Shakur (DW-2) and Gitaram Jhariya (DW-3) and has not adduced any documentary evidence. 6. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and dismissed the cross 5 suit filed by the Appellant herein and the same was affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, this Second Appeal. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submits that both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the claim of the Appellant because there is absence of proof of partition between Bhuvneshwar and Jodhan. He further submits that the counter claim of the Appellant has been wrongly dismissed because her share was never declared as no partition took place between Jodhan and Bhuvneshwar and as such, both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and prays to allow the Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the said Courts. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused both the orders impugned as also the entire record with utmost circumspection. 9. The Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has made a specific averment that the earlier partition took place by way of a registered deed executed on 09.09.1976 (Ex.P-20) and accordingly, the share has also been distributed amongst the parties. Though the Appellant herein has made an averment that there was no partition between Bhuvneshwar and Jodhan but, she has categorically stated that her father had also received a share at village Jhirna i.e. 3.40 acres and her mother and sister have relinquished their right after receiving share of 0.72 acres but she has not filed any deed with regard to the said relinquishment. Admittedly, the father of the Appellant has died way back on 29.09.1997 (Ex.P-6). Even after execution of the registered partition deed, two sale 6 deeds i.e. Ex.P-2 & 4 have been executed. Bhuvneshwar has sold his share i.e. Khasra No.203/2 admeasuring 0.55 acres to Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 and similarly, the Appellant has also executed sale deed on 23.12.1976 for khasra No.46/2 admeasuring 0.50 acres and the Appellant and Bhuvneshwar have not challenged the aforesaid sale deed. 10. From the evidence available on record, it transpires that the registered partition deed was acted upon, which is also admitted by the Appellant but she has failed to prove that the partition deed and both the sale deeds have been forged, therefore, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and allowed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and dismissed the cross suit filed by the Appellant herein. 11. It is well settled that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in Second Appeal, the Appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached and the same was reiterated in the matter of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Shiv Dayal and Another reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637. 12. 12. For the foregoing, I find absolutely no merit in this Appeal, involving any question of law much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. 7 13. In my opinion, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the same, which warrants any interference. 14. Consequently, the instant Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 15. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya