1 2025:CGHC:34816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 659 of 2015 1. Phool Bai W/o Lt. Baburam, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Takeshwer Singh S/o Late Baburam, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Tarun S/o Lt. Baburam, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ..........Plaintiffs ... Appellants versus 1. Chain Singh S/o Murha Singh, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Ramayan Singh S/o Puniram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Radheshyam S/o Puniram, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh Note- Name Wrongly Mentioned In Judgment Dated 22/09/2015 4. Makhan S/o Puniram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Ramnarayan S/o Puniram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Brijbhuvan S/o Hori Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 7. Kamal Kumar S/o Hori Singh, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Devgaon, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh 8. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Korba District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendants ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate For Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 7 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.09.30 16:33:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 22.09.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 25A/2012 (Sayet Ram Vs. Baldew & others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2012 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 81-A/2004 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 25A/2012. 4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averment, are that the plaintiffs have filed suit for title and grant of permanent injunction before learned Civil Judge Class-II, Katghora mainly contending that: (a) The land bearing khasra No. 65 area 0.866 hectare situated at Village Devgaon, Patwari Halka No. 22, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba is recorded in the revenue records (in the name of defendant No. 1/Chain Singh and his brother Puni Ram and son of Hori Singh and the said land is divided into 04 dolis) out of which 0.45 hectare is suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that he has referred genealogy of family of defendants according to which Murha Singh is 3 father of Puniram, Hori Singh and Chain Singh, Puniram has four sons namely Ramayan Singh, Radheshyam, Makhan and Ramnarayan and Hori Singh has two sons namely Brijbhuvan and Kamal Kumar. (b) It is also the case of the plaintiffs that partition has already been taken between the defendant No. 1/Chain Singh and his brother and since then they are in possession of the suit property and after death of Puniram and Horisingh their sons are in possession of their respective land. It is also case of the plaintiffs that on portion of the suit property has been given for partition to defendant No. 1/Chain Singh wherein the area comes to 01 acre and Puniram and Hori singh have also obtained two dolis and one doli respectively on partition. It is also case of the plaintiffs that land of defendant No. 1/Chain Singh is suit land and he has sold the same for Rs. 1650/- on 12.11.1979 to the plaintiff No. 1’s husband and father of plaintiff No. 2 & 3 namely Baburam. It is also case of the plaintiffs that after sale of the said property, defendant No. 1 has asked deceased Baburam to get the registration done in future but since defendant No. 1/Chain Singh is relative of purchaser Baburam and there was good cordial relationship between them, therefore, he has not paid any attention for execution of sale deed. (c) It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the deceased Baburam and his legal heirs are in peaceful possession over the suit property with consent of Chain Singh and as such he has obtained decree on the basis of adverse possession, therefore, defendant No. 1/Chain Singh has no right over the suit property. It is also case of the plaintiffs that 4 Chain Singh has forcefully removed standing crop in his field which has necessitated them to file suit for title and possession. 5. The defendant No. 1/Chain Singh has filed written statement denying the plaint averments mainly contending that no partition has taken place between him and his brother and they are jointly in possession of the entire property owned by the family members and also denied that he has sold the property to Baburam on 12.11.1979 for sale consideration of Rs. 1650/- and has given receipt of the same. It is also the case of the defendant that he has taken some loan from the plaintiff and for payment of loan he has given the said receipt. It is also contended by the defendant No. 1 that in the month of December, 1980 he has sold the standing crop and has paid the entire amount of Rs. 1650/- with interest, as such, it has been contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to get decree of title or possession of the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Learned trial Court on pleadings of the parties has framed as many as 04 issues and on appreciation of evidence and material available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.09.2012 has dismissed the same by recording its finding that the plaintiff is unable to establish that he has purchased the suit property through registered sale deed and it has also recorded that the immovable property whose sale consideration is more than Rs. 100/- therefore, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 it should be a registered document and since no registered sale deed has been placed on record, therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant has 5 sold the suit property to the plaintiffs and accordingly it has dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the plaintiffs have preferred first appeal which has also been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned appellate Court on appreciation of facts and law has recorded its finding that the receipt is not a sale deed and sale of immovable property of having more than Rs. 100/- is required to be registered in absence of effective registered sale deed it cannot be held that the sale deed was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendants and has accordingly dismissed the appeal. 8. Being aggrieved with this order the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the law, money receipt is available and the appellants are in peaceful possession over the suit property and this fact is also known to the defendants despite this no objection was raised as such for more than 30 years they are in peaceful possession over the suit property, therefore, plaintiffs have obtained title on the basis of adverse possession and would pray for allowing the instant appeal. 10. Per contra learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 7 would submit that both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the sale deed was not executed between the plaintiffs and defendants and for sale of immovable property whose consideration is more than Rs. 100/-, as such registration of sale deed is must as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the plaintiffs’ should have 6 placed on record the registered sale deed and in absence of registered sale deed, it cannot be said that sale transaction has been taken place between the parties and would submit that judgment and decree of the trial Court is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From the records of the trial Court, it is quite vivid that a concurrent finding of facts are available in the records regarding filing of the money receipts before learned trial Court, but no sale deed has been produced as the defendant in his defense has categorically stated that he has obtained loan from the plaintiffs and in lieu of loan, receipt was given which is misused by the plaintiffs. This material evidence has not been rebutted by the plaintiffs through examining the witnesses which clearly demonstrate that no sale has been executed with regard to suit property coupled with the facts non-production of any registered sale deed. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised another additional ground for claiming title on the count of adverse possession which was neither pleaded before the trial Court nor evidence was led to this effect and a new plea has been taken. The same is not permissible in view of specific bar contained in the second appeal. Therefore, the plea of adverse possession in absence of any pleadings or evidence to this effect and in view of bar that it has been taken for the first time is not permissible, I am of the view that plea of adverse possession is liable to be rejected accordingly, it is rejected. 7 13. From the above stated discussion and facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the concurrent finding of the facts has been arrived regarding non- execution of sale deed which is neither suffers from perversity or illegality which may raise substantial question of law. The existence of substantial question of law is sine-qua-non for admission of appeal. In absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on admission itself and it is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika