1 2025:CGHC:53532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 405 of 2004 1 - Hari Singh (Died). 1(A). Smt. Subhati W/o Late Hari Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Biringpal Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(B). Pareshar S/o Late Hari Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Biringpal Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(C). Roop Singh S/o Late Hari Sing Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Biringpal Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(D). Shiv S/o Late Hari Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Biringpal Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(E). Smt. Bhagwati D/o Late Hari Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post- Mawlibhatha, Police Station- Parpa Tahsil Tonkapal, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(F). Smt. Devwati D/o Late Hari Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o Village And Post Tirathgarh, Police Station Darbha, Tahsil- Darbha, District- Bastar, C.G. 2 - Srinath (Died). 2(A). Manki W/o Chaitu, D/o Shrinath Aged About 30 Years Village And Post Bhanpuri, Tahsil And Dist. Bastar, C.G. 2(B). Madan Singh S/o Shrinath Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 2(C). Tabin Singh S/o Shrinath Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 3 - Duryodhan (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-04-2025. 3(A). Kulwant Thakur S/o Late Duryodhan Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Biringpal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3(B). Prabhu Thakur S/o Late Duryodhan Thakur Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Biringpal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tagruram S/o Late Jayram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Biringpal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.11.14 10:32:16 +0530 2 5 - Kursoram S/o Late Samnath Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Biringpal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. ... Appellants / Plaintiffs versus 1 - Ghasiram (Died). 1(A). Smt. Jaamwati (Died And Deleted) Wd/o Late Ghasi Ram Aged About 70 Years. 1(B). Heera Singh S/o Late Ghasi Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(C). Mohan Singh S/o Late Ghasi Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(D). Tilak Singh S/o Late Ghasi Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 1(E). Badri Singh S/o Late Ghasi Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Biringpal, Tahsil- Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, C.G. 2 - Gayaram S/o Late Balram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Biringpal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bastar At Jagdalpur. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For State/ Respondent No.3 For Res. No.1(A) to 1(F) and Res. No.2 : : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, P.L. Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 03/11/2025 1. Heard. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) by appellants / plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2004 passed by the First Upper District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal 3 No.11A/2003, whereby the first appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2003 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-II, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.40-A/2001 (wrongly mentioned as 4-A/2001 in impugned judgment), whereby the civil suit filed by the appellants / plaintiffs for declaration of their title and grant of possession over the suit land mentioned in Schedule -A annexed with the plaint was dismissed. (For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown before the trial Court.) 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that appellants /plaintiffs filed the civil suit stating inter alia that both the parties are ‘Hindu’ and their genealogical tree is as under :- र ( त) ( त) ड ( त) न ( त) नथ ( त) ननथ (नतन)( त) बलर ( त) जयर र र गयर हर # नथ $य%न ग&र 4. Defendants are son of Balram, Ghenva & Jhimtu were their grandfather and great grandfather respectively, whereas plaintiffs are son of Jayram and their grandfather was Samnath and great grandfather was Bodka. Thus, genealogical line of plaintiffs and defendants were different from Jhimtu and Bodka, who were real brothers and sons of late Dhurva. It is further pleaded that the suit land was recorded in the 4 name of Bodka and thereafter, it was recorded in the name of Samnath. It is further case of the plaintiffs that partition of ancestral property was effected between Bodka, Sao and Jhimtu and in that partition, the suit land was fallen in the share of great grandfather of the plaintiffs namely; late Bodka. After that partition, Bodka and his successors i.e. Samnath, Jayram and the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land, despite that, defendant No.1 Ghasiram filed an application under Section 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’) before the Assistant Settlement Officer, which was allowed in favour of the defendant Ghasiram and the suit land was ordered to be divided between successors of Ghenva and Samnath holding them to be sons of Bodka, whereas Ghenva was not son of Bodka and partition had already been effected between ancestors of both the parties. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the Settlement Officer was also rejected. Subsequently, Ghasiram again filed an application for partition of the suit land under Section 178 of the Act, 1959, which was allowed by the Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar vide order dated 05.01.2001, therefore, the plaintiffs filed impugned civil suit for declaration of their title and possession over the suit land, as in compliance of aforesaid order of Revenue Court, the suit land was partitioned between plaintiffs and defendants and possession of half share of the suit land was given to the defendants. 5. 5. Respondents / defendants filed their written statement, in which, they pleaded that genealogical tree of both the parties shown by plaintiffs in the plaint is not correct, rather, their actual genealogical tree was as under :- 5 र ड ब'ड न नथ बलर जयर ( त) र' ((..3) र गयर उ*+ गयर ((..1) ((..2) ह,र-.ह # नथ $य%न ग& .1 .2 .3 .4 As per defendants, Ghenva and Samnath were sons of Bodka. Samnath was grandfather of plaintiffs, whereas Ghenva was grandfather of defendants. They pleaded that no partition of the suit land was effected between ancestors of both the parties, therefore, revenue officers vide impugned orders dated 19.07.1996, 04.02.2000 and 05.01.2001, passed the order in favour of defendant Ghasiram in revenue proceedings, in which, it was held that both the parties are descendant of Ghenva and Samnath, sons of Bodka, therefore, they are entitled to get equal share i.e. 50-50 per cent, as plaintiffs are descendant of Samnath and defendants are descendants of Ghenva and no valid partition was effected between ancestors of both the parties. 6. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed 6 issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs holding therein that the suit land is a joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants and the order of partition passed by Asstt. Settlement Officer /Settlement Officer does not suffer from any illegality, as no 6 partition of the suit land was effected between the parties. Being aggrieved, appellants/plaintiffs preferred First Appeal, which was dismissed by First Upper District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur by impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2004 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, hence, the appellants/plaintiffs have filed instant appeal. 7. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law:- “(A). Whether the Courts below were justified in law in holding that the genealogy as proposed by the defendant was accepted by Jayram in Revenue Proceedings culminated in order dated 05-01-2001 passed in Revenue Proceedings No.27/2000-2001? (B) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified ;in law in rejecting the appellant’s application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC?” 8. Learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs would submit that, Jayram, who is father of plaintiffs, has specifically stated in his deposition (Ex. D-5) before the Asstt. Settlement Officer that only Samnath and Deenanath were sons of Bodka and Balram was son of Ghenva and; Ghenva was son of Jhimtu. Jayram has also stated in his deposition that he had not filed any genealogical tree before the Asstt. Settlement Officer, even preliminary objection i.e. handwritten and typed i.e. Ex. D-4A and Ex. D-4 respectively, do not contain signature of Jayram, despite that, Asstt. Settlement Officer did not rely on the statement of Jayram, who is father of plaintiffs and without any evidence held that Ghenva and Samnath were sons of Bodka. Learned counsel would further submit that Jayram has also stated in his 7 deposition Ex. D-5 recorded before Asstt. Settlement Officer that earlier partition was effected between Balram and Samnath, who were descendants of Ghenva and Bodka respectively, despite that, Asstt. Settlement Officer vide order dated 19.07.1996, allowed the application for partition filed by Ghasiram and the same was upheld vide order dated 04.02.2000 (Ex. D-2) passed by the Settlement Officer and similar order was again passed by Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar vide order dated 05.01.2001 (Ex. D-3) holding therein that since no partition was effected between ancestors of plaintiffs and defendants, therefore, being descendants of Ghenva and Samnath, both the parties are entitled to get equal share i.e. ½ each over the suit property, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, he prays that the appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court be set aside and decree may be granted in favour of the plaintiffs by allowing their civil suit. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Res. No.1(A) to 1(E) and Res. No.2 would submit that there is not only concurrent finding of both the Courts below, rather, Revenue Courts also passed similar order, whereby appellants and defendants have been held entitled to get equal share of the suit land, as they are descendants of Samnath and Ghenva respectively, who were real brothers, which was admitted by Jayram (father of plaintiffs) in preliminary objections (Ex.D-4 and Ex. D- 4A). Though in deposition Ex.D-5, he has denied that Ghenva was son of Jhimtu and he was not a son of Bodka, but he did not adduce any other evidence in support of his statement, therefore, Asstt. Settlement Officer did not rely his statement, which was eventually against Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-4A i.e. preliminary objections filed by him. As such, Asstt. 8 Settlement Officer relied aforesaid preliminary objections filed by advocate of Jayram under his signature, which was upheld by Settlement Officer in order Ex.D-2 holding therein that Ghenva and Samnath were sons of Bodka. He would further submit that since there is concurrent finding of the appellate Court as well as the trial Court, hence appeal is liable to be rejected. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record along with record of Courts below. 11. Perusal of evidence and record shows that there is a dispute between both the parties as to whether defendants are descendant of Bodka or they are descendant of Jhimtu. In order dated 04.02.2000 (Ex. D-2) passed by Settlement Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Revenue Appeal No.12/अ-27/95-96, it has been held that plaintiffs are descendants of Samnath and defendants are descendants of Ghenva; and Samnath and Ghenva were sons of Bodka. This view taken by Asstt. Settlement Officer in order dated 19.07.1996 in Revenue Case No.11/अ-27/93-94 was upheld by Settlement Officer, Jagdalpur in aforesaid appellate order. Subsequently, aforesaid genealogical tree, as has been mentioned by the defendants in their written statement, was also upheld by Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar vide order dated 05.01.2001 (Ex. D-3) passed in Revenue Case No.अ/27/2000- 2001. Thus, Revenue Court has categorically recorded the finding that plaintiffs are descendant of Samnath and defendants are descendant of Ghenva, who were sons of Bodka. 12. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs in civil suit to hold aforesaid finding of Revenue Court to be perverse. It has also been held by Revenue Court particularly Asstt. Settlement Officer and 9 Settlement Officer in their orders dated 19.07.1996 and 04.02.2000 respectively that though both the parties / their ancestors were cultivating suit land separately, but they have also held that no valid partition of the suit land has been effected between them/their ancestors, therefore, both the Revenue Courts have held that since the suit land was an ancestral property of both the parties and no valid partition has been effected between their ancestors, hence, both the parties are entitled to get ½ share of the suit land. After considering the evidence adduced by plaintiffs and defendants, learned trial Court also held aforesaid fact, which has further been upheld by first appellate Court. 13. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record, I do not find any perversity or illegality in aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, as no any valid evidence has been adduced by plaintiffs to disregard aforesaid concurrent finding of both the Courts below. 14. Jayram (father of the plaintiffs) has stated in his statement (Ex.D-5) that Bodka have two sons namely; Samnath and Deenanath. He has further stated that Balram (father of original defendants) was son of Ghenva and Ghenva was a son of Jhimtu, but his statement was against his own pleading made in the preliminary objections (Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-4A). It appears that his statement was not found proved by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Settlement Officer, and Tahsildar also, therefore, both the Settlement Officers held that Ghenva (grandfather of defendants) and Samnath (grandfather of plaintiffs) were sons of Bodka, which was admitted by Jayram (father of plaintiffs) in Ex.D-4 and Ex. D-4A. Since aforesaid documents contain signature of 10 Advocate of Jayram, as such contention raised by learned counsel for appellants that, it was not filed by Jayram, is not sustainable. In instant civil suit also, appellants have not brought any cogent evidence to discard aforesaid finding of Revenue Courts. Thus since, in preliminary objections (Ex.D-4 and Ex. D-4A), Jayram himself had admitted that Ghenva and Samnath were sons of Bodka, which was upheld by both the Settlement Officers and no evidence has been brought by plaintiffs to discard aforesaid finding of Revenue Officer, therefore, first question of law is also answered ‘positive’ i.e. in favour of the respondents/defendants and against the appellants/plaintiffs. 15. Since no sufficient ground was mentioned by appellants in filing application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC as to why those documents could not be filed before the trial Court, hence rejecting application filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, is found to be justified. Therefore, second question of law is answered ‘positive’ i.e. in favour of the respondents/defendants and against the appellants/plaintiffs. 16. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal, hence the same is dismissed. 17. The decree be drawn accordingly. 18. The parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar