1 2025:CGHC:49742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 29 of 2020 Ramdhan S/o Late Yadunandan, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Satpatha, Police Station Vishrampur, Tahsil and District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Smt. Santra Bai W/o Amarsai, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Savaranwa, Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. (Cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt.Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 07.10.2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) against the judgment and Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.10.07 16:33:30 +0530 2 decree dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Surajpur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.54-A/2019 which, in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Surajpur (CG) in Civil Suit No.213-A/2012. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff and confirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court, whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. 3. In this appeal, the short question that arises for consideration is whether this Second appeal involves any substantial question law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC and whether such appeal should be admitted for final hearing? 4. Henceforth, the parties shall be referred to as per their description before the Court below. 5. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondent/defendant No.1 seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. He submits that both the Courts below have committed legal error in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff. Although a gift deed Ex.D-5 was executed by father of the appellant, namely, late Yadunandan and his brothers Mohara and Hublal in favour of the respondent Santara Bai on 24.08.1977 in respect of Khasra No.200 3 admeasuring area 0.239 hectares and Khasra No.641 admeasuring area 0.166 hectares, however, such deed was executed on account of the dispute between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife. In such situation, the gift deed executed by father of the plaintiff in favour the respondent was not voluntary in nature and, therefore, same is not valid. In view of such submission, he submits that findings of both Courts below are perverse to the record and prays to admit the appeal by formulating substantial question of law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is well established law that plaintiff has to prove its case on his own strength and he cannot take benefit of weakness of counterpart or other side. It is also settled law that the pleadings are foundation of the civil suit. In the case at hand, perusal of plaint averments would show that no averments have been made by the plaintiff that he is sole title holder of the subject land and that his father late Yadunandan and uncle Mohara and Hublal (brothers of late Yadunandan) have no right to execute such gift deed (Ex.D-5). Furthermore, gift deed (Ex.D-5) was executed by aforesaid three persons in favour of respondent No.1 on account of dispute between the appellant/husband and respondent/wife namely Santara Bai. The record also shows that litigation case between the parties was pending at the time of execution of such 4 gift deed. In such circumstances, it appears that to bring the litigation to a quietus and to develop harmony in relationship, the elderly people of the family took a decision to execute such gift deed in favour of respondent No.1/wife to secure her future life. 8. From the evidence on record, it is also explicit that the plaintiff has developed relation with another lady and from such relation they had children and further he left respondent No.1. Although after sometime, respondent No.1 remarry with another person, namely, Amarsai and out of such relation they blessed with children. 9. In view of the above and considering the plaint averments, this Court finds that both the Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as the gift deed (Ex.D-5) was executed by three elder persons of the family and plaintiff has no right to revoke such gift deed. Moreover, no such averment has been made by the plaintiff in this regard in the plaint. 10. It is well established that when there is concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the above settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. The judgment and decree passed by both the two Courts below appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings recorded by both the Courts are 5 based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they do not call for any interference. 12. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay