1 2025:CGHC:54990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 615 of 2016 1 - Jarwan S/o Late Jeeran, Aged About 40 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Kargikala Post Banshital Tahsil Marwahi Police Station Marwahi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Defendant No.1. ... Appellant versus 1 - Sarodhan S/o Late Jeeran, Aged About 50 Years Cast Panika, R/o Village Kargikala Post Banshital Tahsil Marwahi Police Station Marwahi District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kaushilya Bai D/o Late Jarodhan, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Lata Tahsil Pendra Police Station Pendra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Parmila D/o Late Jarodhan, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kudari Tahsil Pendra Police Station Pendra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Pushpa Bai W/o Late Sarwan, Aged About 40 Years 5 - Ramesh S/o Late Sarwan, Aged About 17 Years 6 - Rajesh S/o Late Sarwan, Aged About 15 Years 7 - Rakshakumari D/o Late Sarwan, Aged About 12 Years 8 - Tulsibai D/o Late Sarwan, Aged About 11 Years Respondents No.5 to 8are minor Through Mother Pushpa Bai, Respondent No.4, All are R/o Village Lata Tahsil Pendra Police Station Pendra District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For State : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 11.11.2025 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant, who was defendant No.1 before the trial court, against the impugned judgment and decree dated 2 14.07.2016 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2014 whereby the Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2014 passed by Civil Judge Class-II Marvahi, District, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.32-A/2012 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of trial court has been affirmed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties shown in the Civil Suit are being taken in the present Second Appeal. 3. The plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of the suit land Khasra No.580 Area 2.18 Acre, situated at village Gullidand which is shown in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint and Khasra No.664/2 Area 0.60 Acre situated at village Kargikala, Tehsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur which is shown in Schedule- B annexed with the plaint. The plaintiffs have pleaded in their plaint that the suit property was originally owned by Jeeran. After death of Jeeran, his sons Sarodhan, Jarodhan, Sarvan, Jarvan and his wife Kundiya Bai inherited the property and came into possession. Sarvan and Jarodhan died. The plaintiff No.2&3 are the legal heir/daughters of Jarodhan and defendants No.2 to 6 are legal heir/sons of deceased Sarvan. In the year, 2011, when he inquired about mutation of his land and went to the office of Patwari, they were informed that in the land of Schedule-B, only the name of Jarvan is recorded and in the land of Schedule-A the names of defendants No.1&6 have been recorded. Since the plaintiffs are legal heir of Jeeran, through their father Jarodhan, they are also the co-sharer of the suit property, but the defendants have got mutated their names alone in the revenue records. They moved an application 3 before the Tehsildar Marvahi for mutation of their names also in the revenue records which was dismissed and the appeal is pending before the SDO Pendra Road. Thereafter, they have filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession and also for declaring the order passed by the Tehsildar Marvahi as null and void. 4. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint averment and pleaded that after issuing notices to the respective party by the Naib Tehsildar Marvahi in Revenue Case No.45/A-27/2006-07, the name of Jarvan was recorded in the land of Khasra No.664/2 Area 0.60 Acre of Schedule-B property. Likewise, with respect to Schedule-A property of Khasra No.580 Area 2.18 Acres, by the order dated 04.09.2012 passed in mutation case No.46 A-6/2011-12 the names of defendants No.2 & 6 have been mutated in the revenue records. It is also pleaded that the land of Khasra No.664 Area 0.60 Acre was purchased by Jeeran through registered sale deed dated 22.04.1970. Up to December, 1971 Panika Caste was under the aboriginal Tribes and therefore the provisions of Section 170-B of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is not attracted in the case and after its purchase Jeeran and his son Jarvan is in possession of the suit property. The land of Khasra No.580 Area 2.18 Acre was purchased by Jeeran through registered sale deed dated 09.01.1971 and since then he is in possession of the suit property and plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. 5. The defendants No.2 to 6 remained exparte before the trial court and have not filed their written statement. 4 6. On the basis of pleadings made by the plaintiffs as well as the defendant No.1, the trial court has made following issues: dzekad fook+|d fu"d"kZ 1 D;k oknhx.k oknHkwfe ds ifjizs{; esa LoRo dh mn~?kks"k.kk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA gkW izekf.kr 2 D;k oknhx.k oknHkwfe dk cVokjk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA gkW izekf.kr 3 D;k oknhx.k oknHkwfe ij dCtk vfHkizkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA gkW izekf.kr 4 SD;k izLrqr O;ogkj okn fofgr le;kof/k ds Hkhrj gSA gkW izekf.kr 5 D;k okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu mfpr :i ls fd;k tkdj ml ij Ik;kZIr U;k; 'kqYd pLik fd;k x;k gSA vkaf’kd izekf.kr U;k; 'kqYd de gS 6 Lkgk;rk ,oa O;; dafMdk 16 ds vuqlkj 7. In support of the case of respective parties, the plaintiffs have examined Sarodhan, PW-1 & Keval Singh PW-2 and relied upon documents Ex.P/1 to P/5 which are revenue records of the suit property and documents of revenue proceedings. The defendants have examined Jarvan, DW-1, Lalchand, DW-2, Premsingh, DW-3 and Bahoran, DW-4 and relied upon documents Ex.D/1 to D/7 which are the documents of revenue records. 8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that they are the joint owner of the suit property along with defendants and they are entitled for partition and separate possession of the same. The trial court has also held that the suit is within limitation. The defendant No.1 Jarvan filed had first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, challenging the judgment and decree of 5 the trial court which has also been dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 against which the present Second Appeal has been preferred. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the courts below have erred in allowing the suit and granting decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The issue with respect to limitation to file suit have wrongly been considered by the courts below. The appellate court has mechanically decided the issue of limitation to file the suit without proper discussion of the evidence available on record. It is the case of plaintiffs themselves that there was earlier partition between the family members and they are in possession of their respective shares and therefore there cannot be subsequent partition again. The plaintiffs witness Kewal Singh have also admitted that the parties are in possession of their respective share as per their earlier partition, yet decree for partition and separate possession has been passed by the trial court and the first appeal has also been dismissed which are erroneous and thus substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for its determination. 10. I have heard the counsel for the appellant, perused the record of trial court and gone through the evidence 11. While deciding issues No.1 to 3 the trial court has considered the evidence of the parties. It is admitted fact in the case that the suit property was purchased by Jeeran and it was earlier recorded in his name. The plaintiffs are claiming that they are the legal heirs of Jeeran. The defendants are claiming that they are the sole owner of the suit property. The defendant No.1 Jarvan have admitted in his evidence 6 that suit land Khasra No.664/2 Area 0.60 Area was purchased by his father from Dhani Ram Gond and land of Khasra No.580 Area 2.18 Acre was purchased by his father from Bandhu Pawa. All the witnesses have admitted that the suit property was purchased by Jeeran and the parties are legal heir of Jeeran. Under the undisputed fact of the case that parties are legal heir of Jeeran and when the defendants are claiming that they are sole owner of the suit property, the burden shifts upon them to prove their title over the suit property and why the other legal heir of Jeeran have no right or title over the property. The defendants have filed document Ex.D/5 which is Kistbandi Khatauni of the year, 2011-12 of village Gullidand and D/6 which is also Kistbandi Khatauni of the year 2011-12 of village Kargikala in which the name of Jarvan, Sarvan and Kundiya Bai were recorded and the land of Khasra No.664/2 is recorded in the name of Jarvan. 12. DW-1 Jarvan have admitted in his cross examination that he did not know as to by which order his name has been recorded in the revenue record. It is for the defendants to prove that the right or title of the plaintiffs over the suit property is extinguished by any legal deed or document. Only because of the reason that in the mutation proceeding the plaintiffs have not participated and proceeded exparte, their right or title cannot be denied. The claim of the defendants is on the basis of the revenue entry based on the order passed by the revenue courts which does not extinguish the title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. 13. It is the settled proposition of law that revenue entries are to be made only for fiscal purposes and it does not create or extinguish any title of the party over the property. (Kindly See: Karan Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh 7 & Ors, 2025 INSC 1238, Jitendra Singh Vs. State of MP & Ors, 2021 SCC Online SC 802, H. Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. L. Venkaktesh Reddy, 2015(14)SCC 784, Prahlad Pradhan Vs. Sonu Kumhar, 2019 SCC Online SC 1416, Bhima Bai Mahadeo Kambhekar (Dead) through LRs Vs. Arthur Import & Export Co. & Ors. 2019(3)SCC 191, Balvant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh, 1997 (7)SCC 137 and Smt. Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur 1996(6)SCC 223). 14. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court has not considered the limitation period to file the suit in proper manner and has passed the judgment mechanically is concerned, in paragraph 14 the first appellate court has discussed the issue of limitation. The trial court has framed issue No.4 with respect to limitation to file the suit and held that suit is within limitation considering that cause of action arose on 04.09.2012 when Tehsildar Marvahi rejected their application for mutation of their name in the suit property and thereafter the suit was filed on 06.10.2012 which is within limitation as provided under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Although the limitation was not set as a defence in the written statement of defendant No.1, however, while invoking jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, the trial court has framed issue and decided the same. The first appellate court though have discussed that since the defendant No.1 have not raised any objection in his written statement with respect to limitation period to file the suit therefore they cannot take a plea in the appeal that suit is barred by limitation, however, even if the first appellate court have rejected the submission of counsel for the appellant with respect to limitation period to file the suit, this 8 court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly considered the limitation period to file the suit within three years from the date of cause of action which arose on 04.09.2012, particularly when the defendants have not led any evidence with respect to limitation period to prove that suit is barred by limitation. 15. The plaintiffs are claiming that they are co-owners of the suit property and are entitled for partition and separate possession. There would be no limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act in a suit for partition. When the right of the plaintiffs have denied by virtue of the order passed by the Tehsildar, Marvahi on 04.09.2012 immediately thereafter they filed the suit for declaration of their title, partition and separate possession of the suit property, which cannot be said to be beyond limitation. Even otherwise, suit for partition is a continuing right and, therefore, there is no specific period of limitation for filing the suit itself. 16. In the matter of Krishna Devi Shrivastava & Ors. Vs. Ram Prasad Shrivastava & Ors, 2006 SCC OnLine MP 55, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that: “20. The another limb of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. 21. The contention cannot be accepted. A co-owner of the property can file the suit for partition at any time. The counsel for the appellant could not show as to when the period of limitation started against the plaintiff, therefore, this contention also is not acceptable.” 17. In Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC 288, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 36 & 37 as under : “36.In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (Dead) by LRs and others[15], it has been observed that when the courts below 9 had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another[16], it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors.” 18. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, this court does not find any perversity. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and this court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the case for its determination. 19. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed without noticing to other side. The parties shall bear their own cost. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder