1 2025:CGHC:57839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 466 of 2017 1 - Sabad Ram S/o Shri Chinta Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Caste Satnami, R/o Village Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years, Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Raj Kumar S/o Shri Sant Ram Satnami, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kaghora, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rewa Ram S/o Late Shri Kunj Ram Satnami, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Balko, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sunau Ram S/o Shri Kunj Ram Satnami, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Rumgara, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Phool Bai D/o Shri Sewaram Bharti, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Baksara, Pantora, Tahsil Janjgir, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 6 - Pusai Bai D/o Late Shri Kunj Ram Satnami, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Village Hardibazar, Tahsil Deepika, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.09 11:14:13 +0530 2 7 - Ram Lal S/o Shri Bodh Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Caste Satnami, R/o Ambedkar Chawk, Bhadrapara, Balko, Tahsil Katghora, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector Korba, Civil and Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh (Defendants) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27-11-2025 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17-04-2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of learned Additional District Judge Katghora in Civil Appeal No.16-A/2015 whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 25-08-2015 passed in Civil Suit No.256A/2015 by the Civl Judge Class I Katghora has been affirmed. 2. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction over the suit land of Khasra No.1475/2 and 1475/3 area 0.102 hectare and 0.377 hectare respectively situated tat Village Katghora, P.H. No.25, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba and also for possession of the suit land if the dependents are found in possession of the plaintiff’s land. 3. The admitted facts in the present case is that the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 7 have sold the land of Khasra No.1475/2 area 0.303 hectare in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit with the pleading that though defendant No.1 had purchased 0.303 hectare of land from Khasra No.1475/2 through registered sale deed dated 07-01-2008, but the entire sale consideration has not been paid to the seller and had possessed the excess land to the land purchased by him and started cultivating the said land. When the plaintiff stopped 3 the defendants from encroachment they did not stop and then cause of action arose and he filed the civil suit. 4. The defendant No.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement with the pleading that he has not encroached in any part of the land of plaintiff and never tried to dispossess the plaintiff from his land. A demarcation was also conducted by the revenue authorities with respect to his purchased land and in the said demarcation report the defendant No.1 is not found in possession of any excess land or he is not found in possession of the land of the plaintiff. Only to extract money from defendant No.1 the plaintiff has filed the civil suit which is afterthought. The defendant No.1 has never created nuisance over the suit property and no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and his civil suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court has framed the following issues:- “1- D;k oknh] oknHkwfe ds laca/k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo#) muds ¼oknh½ dCts esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLr{ksi] u djus ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 2- D;k izfroknh dzekad 1 oknh ls O;FkZ dk okn ykus ds dkj.k crkSj {kfriwfrZ 25]000@& ¼iphl gtkj #i;s½ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 3- lgk;rk ,oa O;;” 6. in support of his claim the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, Chhotelal PW-2, Satyaprakash Sonwani PW-3 and relied upon the document Ex.-P/1 and P/2 which are the copies of the revenue records. Ex.-P/3 is the stay order dated 19-01- 2011 issued by the Tahsildar Katghora. 7. The defendants have examined DW-1 Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, DW-2 Ganesh Das and relied upon the document Ex.-D/1 which is the copy of the sale deed by which he purchased the land of 0.303 hectare from Khasra No.1475/2. Ex.- D/2, D/3 and D/4 are the revenue records and mutation register. Ex.-D/5, D/6 and D/7 are the documents which relate to the demarcation of the land of Khasra No.1475/2 ([k) area 0.303 hectare. 4 8. After consideration of the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.1 is in possession of excess land to what he has purchased from the plaintiff out of Khasra No.1475/2 area 0.303 hectare or he is in encroachment of any part of land of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has also considered the document Ex.- D/5, D/6 and D/7 in which there is no encroachment or possession over the excess land were found during demarcation of the land of the defendant No.1 and has dismissed the suit of plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 25-08-2015. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate court which has also been dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 17-04-2017 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is upheld. Hence, this second appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prior to the sale of land to defendant No.1 there was proceeding initiated by the plaintiff under Section 250 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 which clearly shows that defendant No.1 are in possession of the excess land for which the plaintiff was claiming possession. He would further submit that the plaintiff has sold only 0.303 hectare of land out of Khasra No.1475/2 and it is for the Court concerned to get the land of the plaintiff demarcated and to pass a decree in his favour. He would also submit that the Tahsildar Katghora has initially passed a stay order Ex.-P/3 when the defendant No.1 was trying to encroach the land of the plaintiff which clearly demonstrates that the defendant No.1 had encroached the land of the plaintiff, yet the learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and non-calling of the demarcation report with respect to the encroachment dispute would give rise to substantial question of law for its determination in the present appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. 11. From perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court it transpires 5 that they have dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant No.1 is in possession of excess land whatever he has purchased from the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the stay order dated 19-01-2011 Ex.-P/3 issued by the Tahsildar Katghora. From perusal of the document Ex.-P/3 it transpires that at the time when the medh of the land of Khasra No.1475/2 and 1475/3 was dismentled at the time of leveling of the land, the Tahsildar has passed the order for staying the work of leveling. From the document Ex.-P/3 it it does not appear that the defendant No.1 has encroached any part of the land of the plaintiff, but it gives rise the fact that the defendant No.1 had purchased the land of 0.303 hectare out of Khasra No.1475/2 and he might have leveling his land and for which some disturbance over the medh of the aforesaid lands would occur. It is also not shown by the plaintiff that despite having order passed by the Tahsildar Katghora the defendant no.1 had encroached the land of the plaintiff. Even it is not pleaded that despite the order of Tahsildar Katghora his land has been possessed by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had not tried to make any application or had not get his land demarcated by making any application before the trail Court or even before the revenue authorities. The issue of encroachment over the land is a pure question of facts which has been concurrently decided by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and from the evidence produced by the plaintiff as well as the documents annexed in the suit it does not transpire that the defendant No.1 had encroached any part of the land of the plaintiff or he is in possession of excess land whatever he has purchased from him. Rather from the documents Ex.-P/5 to P/7 it clarifies that the he is in possession of his purchased land and not in encroachment of any other land. 12. In the matter of 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 [(1997) 3 SCC 546] it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the 6 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 [(1999) 3 SCC 573] 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 [(2007) 14 SCC 138].” 13. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Dayal & Another, 2019(8)SCC 637, has observed in paragraphs 16 & 17 as under: “16. 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 it was based on no evidence or it was 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. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43). 17. In our opinion, if any one or more ground, as mentioned above, is made out in an appropriate case on the basis of the pleading and evidence, such ground will constitute substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.” 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination. 7 Therefore, the present second appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present second appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil