1 2025:CGHC:45814 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 88 of 2020 1 - Uttam Kumar Verma S/o Late Tula Ram Verma Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Village Mahrumkhurd, thana Dhumka, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt Raimun Bai W/o Uttam Kumar Verma Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Mahrumkhurd, thana Dhumka, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Punaram Sahu S/o Tikam Sahu Aged About 45 Years Permanent Residence- Mahrumkhurd, Thana- Dhumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Present Residence- Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 10, Near Ramesh Kirana Stores, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 09/09/2025 1 Heard on admission. 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.09.11 11:17:44 +0530 2 decree dated 15.11.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Appeal No.52A/2018 upholding the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2018 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-II, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.19A/2016, whereby the civil suit filed by appellants / plaintiffs for grant of possession and mesne profit, has been dismissed. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the plaintiffs had been granted Patta on a piece of government land of plot No.35/02 and 35/03, area 304 sq. ft. situated at Shanti Nagar, Ward No.10, Rajnandgaon on 30.07.1998, thereafter, they had constructed Kachcha house over it. The plaintiffs and defendant are resident of same village, therefore, the plaintiffs had bondafidely permitted defendant to reside in said house. But subsequently, despite request made by plaintiffs, defendant refused to vacate the suit land/property, as such, the plaintiffs filed instant civil suit. He would further submit that defendant has admitted in his written statement and even witnesses of defendant have also admitted in their deposition that Patta of the suit land/property was granted to the plaintiffs and they had constructed Kachcha house over it, despite that, both the Courts below declined to regard aforesaid deposition only because said Patta has not been filed and proved by the plaintiffs. 3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs referring to provision of Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC would submit that grant of Patta to the plaintiffs has been admitted by defendant in pleading and has also been proved by his witnesses. The defendant has also stated that he had 3 purchased the suit land/property from plaintiffs, but no valid sale deed has been filed by him. This fact also supports contention of plaintiffs that Patta was granted to him, despite that, both the Courts below declined to accept aforesaid evidence only because of lack of said document i.e., Patta, which is perverse and illegal, hence he prayed that, the instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 5 It is contention of plaintiffs that the suit land/property was granted to them on 30.07.1998 on Patta by Revenue Authorities, thereafter, they had constructed Kachcha house over it, which has also been supported by plaintiff No.1 -Uttam Kumar Verma in his deposition, but, aforesaid fact has not been supported by plaintiffs’ witnesses namely; Jyotish Prasad Verma (PW-2) and Gangdev Verma (PW-3). It is also not in dispute that the defendant - Punaram Sahu has admitted in his pleading and deposition that the suit land/property was given to plaintiffs on Patta under Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojna, but since the suit land/property is a Government land and without impleading State, plaintiffs have filed instant suit, thus, civil suit suffers from non impleadment of necessary party. Further, on the strength of admission made by defendant and in view of provision of order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC, reliefs sought for by plaintiffs/appellants cannot be granted to them, as alleged Patta has not been filed and proved by them. Hence, decree of the government land cannot be granted in favour of plaintiffs only on the basis of admission of defendant, else it would be entitling plaintiffs of valid possession holder of the suit land/property, whereas no document i.e., Patta has been filed and proved by them. 4 6 The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have considered the issue involved in the case in detail, which is not found to be perverse and illegal. 7 On due consideration, no substantial question of law is found to be framed in the instant second appeal, hence, the same is dismissed at motion stage. 8 The parties to bear their own cost(s). 9 The decree be drawn accordingly. 10 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 11 Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar