1 2025:CGHC:40021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 658 of 2017 1. Smt. Indrani Gupta W/o Manoj Gupta, Aged About 38 Years R/o Behind Vindhyawasini Mandir, Kanha General Stores Mathpara, Birgaon, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Manoj Gupta S/o Tukau Saheb Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Vindhyawasini Mandir, Kanha General Stores Mathpara, Birgaon, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1. Smt. Ruknai Gupta W/o Shrikant Gupta Aged About 56 Years R/o Behind Vindhyawasini Mandir, Kanha General Stores, Mathpara Birgaon, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan and Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocates For the State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Justice Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 11/08/2025 Heard on Admission. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.18 10:34:10 +0530 2 1. The instant Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017, passed by 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 23-A /2017, whereby the plaintiff appeal has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2017, passed by 6th Civil Judge Class-1, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2011, by which learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed for eviction of the defendants from suit property within 1 month along with payment of arrears of rent with 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit till vacant possession is granted. Learned trial Court has declined the counter claim filed by the defendant. 2. The parties have been described as per their status shown in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2011 before the learned trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case reflected from the record are that the plaintiff filed the civil suit for eviction, arrears of rent and for damage mainly contending that (a) The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the real sisters. The plaintiff was working as supervisor in Ramesh Industries and also teaching to small kids thereby she was generating income and from the said income, she has purchased the lands bearing khasra No. 52/2, 52/4 total area 540 sq. fit situated at Birgaon, P.H. No. 110, R.N. M. Dharsiva, Tahsil and District Raipur from one Gopal Prasad through registered sale deed dated 04.02.2004 (Hereinafter referred to as suit property). (b) It has also been contended that the suit property which has been purchased by her is self acquired property, as such it is mutated in her name, therefore, she is the absolute owner of the property. It has also been contended that in the suit property she has constructed four rooms in the 3 year 2005 thereafter her marriage was solemnized therefore, she resided in her matrimonial house. It is also contended that before marriage her father expired on 04.02.2005 and her mother was alone and no one was there in her house to lookafter her mother, therefore, the plaintiff told the defendant No.1 being elder sister she may takecare of their mother but the defendant No.1 stated that she was residing in the rented house, as such she is unable to lookafter the mother, therefore, the plaintiff allowed the defendant No.1 to live in her house with mother on payment of rent of Rs. 600/- per month. It is also contended that the defendant No.1 paid rent upto 2008 and thereafter she stopped to pay the rent and also started dispute with the plaintiff. It is also contended that in the year 2009, plaintiff’s husband Shrikant Gupta got job in Mahamaya Ispat Limited Urla, Raipur and for requirement of house she asked the defendant No.1 to vacate the house but she denied the same and even she opened a provision store in one room which has compelled the defendant No.1 to live in one room causing difficulty to live with the family members. The plaintiff demanded rent from the defendant which was refused by her which necessitated the plaintiff to file civil suit. 4. The defendant filed the written statement denying the averment made in the plaint as well as counter claim contending that the suit property is ancestral property belonging to her father and after marriage of plaintiff, her father partitioned suit property in both the names during his lifetime therefore, she is residing in her share of the suit property and would pray for dismissal of the suit. In the counter claim she has prayed for permanent injunction and contended that the defendant No.1 from her income and 4 from her husband’s income on oral partition by her father she has constructed two rooms in the suit property and accordingly it has been prayed for restraining the plaintiff to interfere in her peaceful possession of the suit property on her share. 5. Learned trial court on the pleading of the parties has framed as many as 12 issues and issue no.1 is relevant which is extracted below. अत आ ल न नण !"ल # $% 6. The plaintiff to substantiate her submission has examined herself as PW-1 and exhibited documents registered sale deed (Ex.P-1), receipt (Ex.P-2), receipt (Ex.P-3), Electricity bill (Ex.P-4), Notice under Section 155 CrPC (Ex.P-5 and 6), complaint (Ex.P-7), Experience certificate (Ex.P-8 & 9), mark sheet of MA (Ex.P-10), legal notice (Ex.P-11), receipt (Ex.P-12) and acknowledgment (Ex.P-13), khasra and B-1 (Ex.P-14). 7. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has recorded its finding in paragraph-25 of the judgment that the plaintiff is able to establish the fact that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff from her self acquired income and it is not a parental property, as such the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property and she is required the house bonafidely. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the defendants have filed the first appeal which has also been dismissed by the first appellate Court. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the defendants have filed the second appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It has been further contended that if the plaintiff has alleged that she has 5 purchased the suit house from her generated income and at that time the defendant No.1 was not in employment no cogent evidence has been placed on record to substantiate this averment by the plaintiff, as such both the courts below have committed illegality in recording such finding therefore, substantial question of law exists in the appeal and would pray for allowing the appeal. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents would submit that learned both the courts below have recorded findings as per law and there is concurent finding of fact which is not liable to be interfered by this Court in absence of any cogent evidence placed before the trial court. He would further submit that both the Courts have not committed any illegality or irregularity which warrants interference by his Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal at the admission stage itself. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below. 11. Considering the submission of the parties and from the evidence and material on record, it is not in dispute that that the plaintiff has stated in her examination-in-chief that she has purchased the property from her generated income and this fact has not diluted/ rebutted by the defendant during cross examination of the plaintiff. Even the defendant has not placed any document on record or any material on record to show that her father has purchased the suit property from his income and there is no document placed on record to deny execution of sale deed (Ex.P-1) which has been executed between Rukmani Gupta and Gopal Prasad Agrawal. It is also well settled legal position of law the sale deed has presumptive value 6 unless so cogent evidence to question the correctness or truthness of the sale deed is brought on record by the defendants. The defendants are unable to place any such material on record, therefore, learned both the courts have not committed illegality in recording the finding that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff from their income, as such, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments and decree which form the substantial question of law. 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o. Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in 2012 (7) SCC 288 has held that High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding of fact, unless finding recorded are perverse being based on no evidence. The relevant para-36, 37 of the judgment are as under:- "36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh it has been observed that when the courts below 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 Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao, 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 decisions of this Court in Abdul Raheem V. Karnaraka Electricity Board. 13. Keeping in view, the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is based on evidence, no substantial question of law is 7 involved in this appeal. Thus appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed at admission stage itself. No order as to costs. 14. Interim order passed by this Court on 01.11.2017 shall stand vacated. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh