1 2025:CGHC:48500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 487 of 2015 1 – Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Shoukhi Lal Soni Aged About 50 Years 2 - Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shoukhi Lal Aged About 56 Years 3 - Puspa Soni D/o Late Shoukhi Lal Aged About 54 Years 4 - Usha Soni D/o Late Shoukhi Lal Aged About 52 Years 5 - Geeta Soni D/o Late Shoukhi Lal Soni , Aged About 47 Years All are R/o Village And P. O. Gourela, Tahsil Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Narayan Prasad S/o Late Gopal Prasad Aged About 50 Years 2 - Chhedi Lal S/o Late Gopal Prasad Aged About 55 Years Both are R/o Village- Teekarkala, Post- Gourela, Tahsil - Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Seeta Bai D/o Late Shoukhi Lal Aged About 45 Years R/o Gourela, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh At Present Address Village- Chodi, Post-Pondi, Tahsil - Kotma, District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Kishan Sahu, Dy.G.A Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 19/09/2025 BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.17 10:30:41 +0530 2 1. This second appeal U/s.100 of C.P.C. is filed by appellants/plaintiffs questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.05.2015, passed in Civil Appeal No.22-A/2011, whereby, learned Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) dismissed the appeal filed by appellants/plaintiffs, upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010, in Civil Suit No.109-A/2002 wherein learned Civil Judge Class -1, Pendraroad, District – Bilaspur dismissed the suit of appellants/plaintiffs. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the original plaintiff, Shoukhilal, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title and possession in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 158/6, admeasuring 54 decimals, situated at Village Tikarkala, P.C. No. 23, R.I. Circle – Gourela. During the pendency of the suit, Shoukhilal died, and his legal heirs, the present plaintiffs/appellants, were substituted in his place. It was pleaded in the plaint that Shoukhilal had purchased the suit land from Gopal Prasad, father of defendants No. 1 and 2, through a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1974, and prior to its execution, an agreement was entered into on 01.11.1974. It was further pleaded that about one month before the institution of the suit, when Shoukhilal visited the suit land, he found defendants No. 1 and 2 raising construction of walls and rooms on it; upon questioning them, they argued with and threatened him. Consequently, the suit was instituted seeking declaration of ownership over the suit land as well as possession. 3. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that they have been in 3 possession of land bearing Kh. No. 158/4, admeasuring 0.60 acres, since the lifetime of their father. They asserted that no land bearing Kh. No. 158/7 exists on the spot and that an old mud wall at the disputed site had been constructed by them about 30–35 years ago. It was further averred that their father was addicted to alcohol, and taking undue advantage of this, the plaintiff fraudulently prepared a false document which was deliberately concealed and never acted upon and name of plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue records. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 158/7 but later, without permission of the court, amended the same to Kh. No. 158/6, which reflects their uncertainty regarding the identification of the disputed land. 4. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as seven issues for determination and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, dismissed the suit of plaintiffs by holding that they had failed to establish the execution of sale deed and their possession over the suit land bearing Kh. No. 156/6, admeasuring 0.54 decimals. 5. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was challenged in an appeal U/s. 96 of the C.P.C.. Learned First Appellate Court upon hearing both the sides and after appreciating the documentary and oral evidence brought in by respective parties has dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that learned both the Courts below fell into error in not considering that father of respondents No.1 and 2 had executed an agreement dated 4 01.11.1974 and agreed to sale the land, subject matter of the suit for consideration of Rs.500/- and Rs.50/- was given in advance. It is contended that subsequent to that, sale deed was executed on 02.11.1974, however, even after execution of sale deed, possession of property, which is subject matter of sale deed was not handed over. He contended that initially the possession was handed over, however, subsequently, respondents No.1 and 2 got evicted the plaintiffs from the suit land. He submits that as the land has been purchased by father of appellants/plaintiffs, therefore, entries has been accordingly made in the Kishan Kitab, Khatauni, Khasra (revenue records). Both the Courts below have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in appropriate manner. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that both the Courts below have considered the pleadings made in the plaint and have given categorical finding that initially plaintiffs have claimed right over the suit land bearing No.158/7, however, it was amended without permission of the Court as Kh. No.156/6. The land subject matter of so called sale deed is different land. In the sale deed there is mention of land bearing Kh.No.158/4. He further contended that claim of appellants/plaintiffs from documents available and pleadings made in the civil suit, does not appear to be based on title. Appellants were not having any title over the land for which initially civil suit was filed i.e. land bearing Kh. No.158/7 and thereafter amended as Kh. No.158/6. Learned both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit observing that though there is sale deed of land bearing Kh.No.158/4, 5 land bearing Kh. No.158/6 is recorded in the name of plaintiffs however, there is no document to show that as to how plaintiffs became owner of the land bearing Kh. No.158/6. He also pointed out that learned Appellate Court has also considered that there is no document in record to show that after purchase of land bearing Kh. No.158/4 there was batanakan/partition of Kh. No.158/4 bifurcating it to Kh. No.158/5 and 158/6 and others and have disbelieved the entries made in the revenue records of Kh.No.158/6 in the name of plaintiffs. 8. Learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and decree. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the record of trial Court. 10. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs sought reliefs of declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession by removal of constructions over the suit land, on the ground that land bearing Kh. No. 158/6 had been purchased vide registered sale deed dated 02.11.1974. The learned Trial Court, while deciding Civil Suit No. 109- A/2002 by judgment and decree dated 31.07.2010, observed that the suit was originally filed in respect of land bearing Kh. No. 158/7, but in para 1 of the plaint, number was altered to Kh. No. 158/6 without permission of or any order by the Court. It is evident from the plaint that the plaintiffs’ claim over Kh. No. 158/6 is based on the sale deed dated 02.11.1974, a copy of which was filed as Ex.P-1. Perusal of the sale deed (Ex.P-1), however, shows that it pertains to land bearing Kh. No. 158/4 measuring 0.54 acres. Until the disposal of the suit, no correction was made regarding the erroneous description of the disputed land in para 1 of the plaint, if any, which continued to mention 6 Kh. No. 158/6. The recording of incorrect khasra numbers in the plaint appears to be deliberate, as the Trial Court categorically held that the number was initially mentioned as 158/7 and was later corrected by the plaintiffs to Kh. No. 158/6 without the Court’s permission. 11. The plaintiffs have not produced any document to establish the basis of their claim of title over the land bearing Kh. No. 158/6. No documentary and oral evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the suit land was ever transferred in their favor through any legally admissible transaction. It is also not their case that the land purchased vide Ex.P-1, bearing Kh. No. 158/4, was subsequently subdivided in revenue proceedings and renumbered as Kh. No. 158/6. Neither pleadings nor oral or documentary evidence to this effect have been brought on record by the plaintiffs. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court as also the Appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the claim of plaintiffs observing that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the pleadings made in the plaint to get the relief as prayed for. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty reported in AIR 1996 SC 3521, has held that the interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below by the High Court under Section 100 of CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to re- appreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the Lower Court. Even assuming that another view is possible on re-appreciation of the same evidence that should not have been done by the High Court, as 7 it cannot be said that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was based on no material. 14. In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Shiv Dayal and Another, Reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 14, 15 & 16 as under:- “14. True it is as has been laid down by this Court in several decisions that “concurrent finding of fact” is usually binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). However, this rule of law is subject to certain well-known exceptions mentioned infra. 15. It is a trite law that in order to record any finding on the facts, the trial court is required to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the light of the pleadings of the parties. Similarly, it is also a trite law that the appellate court also has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence de novo while hearing the first appeal and either affirm the finding of the trial court or reverse it. If the appellate court affirms the finding, it is called “concurrent finding of fact” whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called “reversing finding”. These expressions are well known in the legal parlance. 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 dehors 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 8 Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar [Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar, 1942 SCC OnLine MP 26 : AIR 1943 Nag 117] para 43.)” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbiri Devi and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322 while reiterating the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dayal and Another (supra), has held that interference with the concurrent findings in subsequent appeal can be made if it is pointed out that it has been passed dehors the pleadings or based on no evidence or based on misreading of material evidence or against the provision of law etc. 16. Submission made and the question of law formulated by appellant cannot be said to be substantial question of law involved in this appeal. An attempt has been made to dispute the fact which was considered by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. 17. For the forgoing discussions and in light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and upheld by learned first appellate Court. Thus, having considered the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in the instant case, hence, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 18. The Decree be drawn accordingly. 19. The parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram