1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 376 of 2014 1 – Ramkumar S/o Late Nirbhayaram Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashwini Kumar S/o Late Nirbhayaram Patel Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sunderlal S/o Late Nirbhayaram Patel Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Lerkhram S/o Late Nirbhayaram Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Gauri Bai Patel D/o Late Nirbhayaram Patel Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Nemchand S/o Late Jaitram Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chetan Prasad (Died Through Lrs) S/o As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-06-2025 7.1 - Shivpalnath Patel S/o Late Shri Chetan Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o Plot A 13 G Sector A, Indraprasth Phase - 2 Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Jaitram Patel Aged About 27 Years R/o Village- Ragja, Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants/plaintiffs versus 1 - Deleted (Devprasad Chaubey) S/o Hon'ble Court's Order Dated 05-07- 2022, Chhattisgarh 1.1 - Vasu Kumar Chaubey S/o Late Dev Prasad Chaubey Aged About 30 Years R/o Rajapara, Sakti, Tah . Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 1.2 - Raju Kant Chaubey S/o Late Dev Prasad Chaubey Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajapara, Sakti ,tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Janjgir-Champa C.G., District : REKHA SINGH -2- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents/Defendants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants/Plaintiffs : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Trivenishankar Sahu, PL For legal representatives of Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kishan Kumar Yadav, Adv. Holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi,Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 14.11.2025 Heard. 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.26-A/2013 dated 12.08.2014, whereby, the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed. 2. This second appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law vide order dated 30.10.2014 :- "Whether the two courts below have erred in law in entering into the question of deciding the case on the basis of the title of the property when the suit of the plaintiffs was instituted only for grant of permanent injunction? 3. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming permanent injunction interalia on the ground that they had purchased the suit property described in plaint vide Schedule A & B from one Ramchandra and Narayan Prasad through two separate registered sale deeds dated 3 18.10.1989 for sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- each. It is pleaded that the names of the plaintiffs were entered in the revenue record vide order dated 23.01.1991. It is further pleaded that on 17.11.2009, defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as he wanted to raise a construction, therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief of permanent injunction only. 4. The survey numbers purchased from Narayan Prasad are as under : अ "अ" म , हल , ल - र- म अव व ण व म!व " ल #ल ट बर &ववरण - खर बर रब 68/9, 72/8, 76/7, 77/7, 78/7, 79/7 5 ½ fMlfey Survey numbers purchased from Ram Chandra are as under : अ "c" म , हल , ल - र- म अव व ण व म!व " ल #ल ट बर &ववरण - खर बर रब 68/8, 72/7, 76/6, 77/6, 78/6, 79/6 5 ½ fMlfey 5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied plaint averments. Defendant No.1 took specific plea that the plaintiffs failed to describe the boundaries of the lands purchased through registered sale -4- deeds. In para 5, defendant No.1 pleaded that the property described in schedule A and Schedule B were never recorded in the name of Ram Chandra and Narayan Prasad and the plaintiffs have placed on record the forged registered sale deeds. It is also pleaded that the reregistration numbers of both the registered sale deeds are one and same. It is also pleaded that according to the revenue record submitted by the plaintiffs survey Nos.68/3, 68/4,72/3, 77/2, 78/2 & 79/2 are recorded in the name of one Shyam Kumar S/o Hariram Agrawal resident of Sakti and the plaintiffs have not purchased the said survey numbers from Shyam Kumar. It is also pleaded that the area of both the properties are entirely different. In the name of Shyam Kumar, 0.35 acres of land is recorded, whereas, the plaintiffs have purchased 0.55 acres of land total 1.10 acres of land. Likewise, survey No.76/5 is recorded in the name of Hulesh Kumar and Dhanaram. It is further pleaded that the survey No.74/1 admeasuring 0.26 acre of land is recorded in the name of defendant No.1 and survey No.74/2 is government land. 6. Learned Trial Court framed issues, the parties led evidence and thereafter, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.09.2013. 7. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.08.2014. 8. Mr. Patel, Advocate appearing for the plaintiffs would submit that the lands described in schedule A and B were recorded in the names of Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra but there was some mistake in the revenue record of 1983-84. It is argued that a consent letter was executed on the date of registration of sale deeds to the effect that 5 purchaser would move an application for correction of revenue record. He would contend that later on, the plaintiffs as well as the purchaser moved an application before the revenue authorities to correct the revenue record in the names of Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra and order was passed by the revenue authorities in their favour. Thereafter, an application was moved before the Collector of Stamps and an order was passed to correct the survey numbers mentioned in both the registered sale deeds. He would submit that those documents have been placed on record along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Mr. Patel would argue that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of injunction alone but the learned Courts below entered into the issue of title and held that the lands purchased by the plaintiffs were not recorded in the names of sellers, therefore, they did not get title and decline to grant decree of injunction. He would pray to allow the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and further to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Courts below. 9. It is also argued that the learned Courts below erred in law while deciding the case on the basis of title of the property when suit was instituted for grant of permanent injunction. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and others, reported in 2008(4) SCC 594. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. Mr. Yadav would submit that there is concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. He would further submit that in the written statement, specific plea was taken by -6- defendant No.1 that the properties purchased by the plaintiffs were never recorded in the name of Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra. He would submit that the survey numbers mentioned in schedule A and B were recorded in the names of some other persons. He would contend that the plaintiffs were aware of the fact that sale deeds with correct survey numbers have not been executed in their favour but no steps were taken to amend the pleadings of the plaint and no relief was sought with regard to declaration of title or for rectification of the instruments. He has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar (supra). 11. Mr. Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the judgment passed by the learned Courts below. 12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 13. The plaint was filed seeking relief of injunction only. The plaintiffs simply pleaded that they purchased plots mentioned in schedule A & B through registered sale deeds and they are in possession but defendant No.1 is interfering with their peaceful possession. Defendant No.1 in written statement clarified the facts that sellers namely Ram Chandra and Narayan Prasad were not the owners of the properties described in schedule A & B. It was also pleaded that the survey numbers 68/3, 68/4,72/3, 77/2, 78/2 & 79/2 admeasuring 0.35 acres of land were recorded in the name of Shyam Kumar and area of the property purchased by the plaintiffs are entirely different. 14. With regard to Schedule B property, it was stated that part of the property was recorded in the name of Hulesh Kumar. Thus, it is apparent 7 from the perusal of the sale deeds executed by Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra in favour of the plaintiffs and Ex.P/5 maintenance khasra that the lands mentioned in both the documents are entirely different. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have described survey numbers of certain lands which are not mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 executed by Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra respectively. The plaint has been filed on the basis of revenue entries made in maintenance Khasra Ex.P/6 & P/11. Initially, survey Nos. 68/8, 72/7, 76/6, 77/6, 78/6 & 79/6 admeasuring 30 x 80 sq.ft. was recorded in the name of Narayan Prasad and later on, these lands were mutated in the name of the plaintiffs but these lands are not part of the sale deed. Likewise, 68/9, 72/8, 76/7,77/7 78/7 & 79/7 were recorded in the name of Ram Chandra and later on, mutated in the name of the plaintiffs but these lands are not part of the sale deeds Ex.P/2. 15. In first application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the plaintiffs have placed corrigendum issued by the Sub-Registrar whereby, the survey numbers of the sale deeds have been modified. The joint application was moved before the Sub-Registrar, consequently, order was passed on the basis of revenue entries made in Ex.P/6 and consent letter given by the sellers of the suit properties. In subsequent application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC , the appellants pleaded that the application was moved before the Sub-Divisional Officer to correct the maintenance khasra. Vide order dated 24.04.2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer called report from concerned Nayab Tehsildar. Vide letter dated 08.05.2023, the Revenue Inspector submitted its report. Vide memo dated 05.05.2023, a panchnama was prepared, wherein, the possession -8- of the plaintiffs was found and on same day, the site plan was prepared. The Sub-Divisional Officer registered a case and passed order for the correction of the revenue record vide order dated 30.06.2023. 16. By filing these documents, the appellants have tried to establish that due mistake in the revenue record, the correct survey numbers were not mentioned in the sale deeds and when the plaintiffs came to know regarding this mistake, they immediately approached the Collector of stamp, Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. The documents submitted by the plaintiffs clearly established the fact that they did not have purchased proper survey numbers which were recorded in the name of Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra at the time of execution of sale deeds and therefore, they moved application for correction/rectification of the sale deeds. 17. These documents do not touch the issue involved in the present case as suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, these applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are hereby rejected. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar (supra) has dealt with the general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief. It is held that where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie and a person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. It is further held that where 9 the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Paras 13, 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3 are reproduced herein below : “13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2 Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. “ 19. In para 29, it is held that when suit was filed simpliciter seeking relief of injunction, the Court in second appeal should not hold a roving enquiry into an oral gift and its validity or validation of ostensible title under section 41 of TP Act. It is further held that no amount of evidence or arguments can be looked into or considered. Paras 29, 30, 31 & 32 are reproduced herein below : -10- “29.The High Court, in the absence of pleadings and issues, formulated in a second appeal arising from a suit for bare injunction, questions of law unrelated to the pleadings and issues, presumably because some evidence was led and some arguments were advanced on those aspects. The only averment in the plaint that plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property having purchased the same under sale deeds dated 9.12.1968, did not enable the court, much less a High Court in second appeal, to hold a roving enquiry into an oral gift and its validity or validation of ostensible title under section 41 of TP Act. No amount of evidence or arguments can be looked into or considered in the absence of pleadings and issues, is a proposition that is too well settled. 30. The High Court while reversing the decision of the first appellate court, examined various aspects relating to title and recorded findings relating to title. It held that gifting a property to a daughter or sister by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam", could be done orally and did not require a registered instrument. Even though there was no independence evidence of oral gift except the assertion to Rukminibai (which was denied by Damodar Rao), the High Court, held that there was an oral gift in her favour. It also accepted the evidence of PW3 and PW5 and plaintiffs, that Damodar Rao negotiated for the sale of the plots representing that they belonged to his sister Rukminibai and that he attested the sale deeds as a witness and identified the Rukminibai as the executant before the Sub-Registrar and therefore, section 41 of TP Act came to the aid of plaintiffs and Damodar Rao was estopped from denying the title of his sister. The High Court in a second appeal arising from a suit for an injunction, could not have recorded such findings, in the absence of pleadings and issue regarding title. 31. We are therefore of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, firstly in re-examining questions of fact, secondly by going into the questions which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue, thirdly by formulating questions of law which did not arise in the second appeal, and lastly, by interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the first appellate court which held that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration. 32. 32. We are conscious of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1978 and driving the plaintiffs to a fresh round of litigation after three decades would cause hardship to them. But the scope of civil cases are circumscribed by the limitations placed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed and the court fee paid. The predicament of plaintiffs, was brought upon themselves, by failing to convert the suit to one for declaration even when the written statement was filed, and by not seeking amendment of issues to include an issue on the question of title. In the absence of a prayer of declaration of title and an issue regarding title, let alone the pleadings required for a declaration of title, the parties cannot be said to have an opportunity to have a full-fledged adjudication regarding title. “ 20. Present is a case where the plaintiffs purchased survey numbers which were never recorded in the names of sellers namely Narayan Prasad and Ram Chandra. The plaintiffs were in possession and when defendant No.1 interfered with the possession on the ground that those 11 properties do not belong to the plaintiffs, the suit was filed seeking relief of injunction. The defendants specifically disclosed these facts in the written statement but the plaintiffs failed to amend the plaint seeking relief of declaration of title or rectification of the instruments. 21. The learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the survey numbers mentioned in the schedule A & B were never purchased through registered sale deeds by the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree of injunction. 22. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matte of Ananthula Sudharkar (supra), particularly in para 13.3, the substantial question of law is answered in negative against the plaintiffs/appellants accordingly, second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha