1 2025:CGHC:16241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 387 of 2014 • Suresh Kumar Shrivas S/o Narbada Prasad Shrivas Aged About 55 Years R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/defendant No.2 versus 1. Suman @ Kranti Devi And Ors. W/o Chandrashekhar Aged About 32 Years R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh 2. Muskan @ Shivani D/o Chandrashekhar Aged About 13 Years Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Suman @ Kranti Devi, R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Sharda Devi @ Anjani D/o Chandrashekhar Aged About 9 Years Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Suman @ Kranti Devi, R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Bajrang S/o Chandrashekhar Aged About 6 Years Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Suman @ Kranti Devi, R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Renu @ Pallavi D/o Chandrashekhar Aged About 2 Years Minor, Thru- Mother Smt. Suman @ Kranti Devi, R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. Mahesh Prasad Shrivas S/o Narbada Prasad Shrivas Aged About 60 Years R/o Pendra Road, Tah. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant. : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate, For Respondent(s) : None 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judgment on Board 07/04/2025 1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No. 2 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 30-8-2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2011 by which the learned First Appellate court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and reversed the judgment and decree dated 28-6-2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 2004 and also dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants. 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that: (a) The late plaintiff Chandrashekhar filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Pendra Road on 12.03.1996 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 2/appellant from interfering in peaceful possession of suit property described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint which is ‘Shop’ which is in peaceful possession of the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the whole suit shop (10.4x 52 sq.ft) except 5 x 7 sq.ft of shop and the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were doing the business jointly three months prior to filing of the suit. Due to his own necessity plaintiff has got vacated the shop from the possession of defendant No. 1 & 2 and put his lock in the shop which was forcefully opened and the defendants have taken possession of the 3 shop which has necessitated the plaintiff to file civil suit for injunction. 3. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also filed counter claim contending that they are in possession of the shop for last 15 years and have purchased this suit property from deceased Babulal on 19-11-1973 for sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and accordingly it was registered in the name of his minor son. It has also been contended that the property which is recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 only and he is in possession of the suit property as owner of the suit property. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. It has also been contended that the plaintiff is entitled to get 5 x 7 sq.ft of property and rest of the property is in possession and ownership of the defendant No. 2. As such, he would pray for dismissal of the suit and prayed that counter claim be allowed and he may be granted possession of the entire suit property except 5 X 7 sq. ft.. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as six issues. Issue No. 1, 2 and 3 are relevant which are as under: 1- D;k oknh oknxzLr edku dk LoRokf/kdkjh ekfyd dkfctnkj gS\ 2- D;k oknh bl oknxzLr edku ij vius dCts esa izfr0x.k dh n[kyankth ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- D;k izfr- Ø- 2 bl oknxzLr edku ds 5 x 7 QqV jdcs dks NksM+dj 'ks"k Hkkx esa cSukek fnukad 19-11-73 ls LoRokf/kdkjh dkfct pys vk jgk Fkk\ 5. The plaintiff to substantiate his submission has examined himself as 4 PW-1 and exhibited the documents. The plaintiff in the cross examination has admitted that he is not aware that in the examination-in-chief he has mentioned that the suit property was purchased jointly in the name of Chandrashekhar Shrivas and Mahesh Prasad Shrivas and it has been stated that the shop has not been vacated by him. He has also admitted that after opening of the shop no construction has been carried out. 6. The defendant No. 2 examined himself under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC reiterating the stand taken by him. This witness was extensively cross-examined, wherein he has admitted that he has not filed any document to demonstrate that the shop has been purchased in the name of Mahesh Prasad Shrivas. He has also admitted that the suit property was recorded in the name of plaintiff. The other witness DW/2 Kallu Prasad has also supported the case of the defendant and has stated that sale deed was executed in the year 1972 and it was purchased for sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and Mahesh has invested Rs. 7,000/- whereas Suresh has given Rs. 3,000/-. The witness has stated that he has given Rs. 3,000/- to Suresh and the said amount was returned back by him. 7. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim filed by the defendant by directing the decree of possession of land measuring 5 x 7 sq.ft. in favour of the plaintiff and remaining will be in possession of the defendant No. 2. It has also recorded its finding that the plaintiff will not make any interference in peaceful possession of the property except 5 x 7 sq.ft.. Being aggrieved with 5 this order, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 8-A of 2011 and the said appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court on 28-6-2010 and it has been directed that the defendant No. 2 shall not interfere in peaceful possession of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 111 Patwari Halka No. 26 area 10.4 x 52 sq ft. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the defendant No. 2 has preferred this second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned First Appellate Court has committed illegality in reversing the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. He would further submit that the defendant No. 2 has placed on record sufficient material regarding ownership of the property ie., tax receipt and would submit that the learned trial Court taking into consideration the entire evidence has passed the judgment and decree which has been reversed by the First Appellate Court without proper appreciation and without material on record, as such he would submit that the substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and would pray for admission of the appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of both the courts below. 10. Learned First Appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court has recorded its finding in paragraph 17 that the defendant has nowhere mentioned that how 6 he received the money to purchase the suit property and there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses which creates doubt over investment made by the defendant No. 1. The witness examined by the Defendant Ved Prasad Tiwari has stated that he has gone with Mahesh for registration of the property, but has not stated that registry has been done on whose favour. This fact was within his knowledge as he has gone for registration with Mahesh. In absence of any specific evidence in this regard it cannot be held that Mahesh has purchased the house in the name of his one year old child after giving the sale consideration, the sale deed has been executed in his favour. The learned appellate Court has recorded its finding that the suit property was purchased in the name of plaintiff therefore, he has legal right and the Defendants have not filed any suit for declaration of the sale deed to be null and void, as such till the sale deed is declare null and void the plaintiff has title and Defendants have no title over the suit property. The appellate Court has also recorded its finding in paragraph 21 that the Defendant No. 2 has admitted that he was aware on 05.06.1996 that the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff and he has also admitted that at the time of mutation on 05.06.1996 he has raised objection but not filed suit for declaration of title within three years though the fact was well within his knowledge and the counter claim has been filed in the year 2005 after filing of the suit, as such, the counter claim is barred by limitation. According, it has allowed the appeal. 11. The learned first appellate Court after appreciating evidence, 7 material on record, law of limitation has allowed the appeal which is neither suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Thus, no substantial question of law exists in the appeal which is sine-qua-non for admission of the appeal, therefore, I am of the view that no substantial question of law is involved and the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 13. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.06.09 11:32:44 +0530