1 2025:CGHC:57149 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 177 of 2024 Dorelal Soni S/o Late Bendilal Soni Aged About 47 Years R/o Chikanipali, Tehsil Kartalal, Dist. Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner. Versus Smt. Jamuna Soni D/o Bendilal Soni Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Purenhapara, Sakti, Tehsil Sakti, Dist. Janjgir Champa (Now Sakti), C.G. ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 25/11/2025 1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”) against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, (FTC) Korba, District Korba (CG) in Civil Appeal No.3-B/2023, which, in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, District Korba (CG) in Civil Suit No.10-B/2018. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant (appellant herein) and in Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.11.25 16:24:41 +0530 2 consequence, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which had allowed the plaintiff's suit (respondent herein). 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal 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. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Defendant and plaintiff are brother and sister and their father, namely, late Bendilal Soni, during his services, deposited the GPF, PPF and Insurance amount in the Sahkari Bank Hardibazar. However, after death of late Bendilal Soni, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the amount of Rs.2,36,137/- deposited in the name of her father has already been withdrawn by the defendant. Therefore, she has filed a suit alleging that she is entitled for half share in said amount being a daughter of late Bendilal Soni. 6. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the trial Court allowed the suit and held that plaintiff/respondent being a daughter of late Bendilal is entitled for 1/3rd share out of Rs.2,36,136/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the defendant/appellant. 7. Against the said findings, the appellant/defendant preferred the First Appeal and the First Appellate Court, on appeal, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Ultimately, the first appeal was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial 3 Court. It is this judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which is impugned in the Second Appeal filed by the defendant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error by not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective so the finding recorded by both the Courts below is perverse. He also submits that father of the defendant himself nominated the defendant in the service record and being a nominee the defendant has received the amount of provident fund etc., therefore, respondent has no right to claim on such amount. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10. There is a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that the since the appellant and respondent are son and daughter of late Bendilal, therefore, since birth they are entitled for the equal right. 11. Further, learned counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate as to how right of daughter can be curtailed only on the ground that father has made nominee only one of member of the family. 12. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 13. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent finding of fact is 4 assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or 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. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal proposition, this Court find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. In my view, 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 based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they does not call for any interference. 15. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay