1 2025:CGHC:56473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 169 of 2019 1 - Yogesh Shukla S/o Late Shri Madanlal Shukla Aged About 65 Years R/o Near Bharat Kiraya Bhandar Brahman Para Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Vijaylaxmi Tiwari W/o Shri Ram Murti Tiwari R/o Infront Of Water Filter Plant, Near Goverment School, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suresh Shukla S/o Late Madanlal Shukla R/o Sector 4,behind Water Tank,plot No. 211, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sangeeta Shukla D/o Late Madanlal Shukla R/o Near Malsai Talab, Kushalpur Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Rashmi Dubey W/o Shri Anil Dubey R/o Village Kolihapuri Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chhattisgarh Goverment Through Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Keshav Pandey S/o Babban Pandey R/o Musalman Para Charoda - Dharsiwa District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Atul Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 For Res. no. 5/ State : : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.12.19 10:42:46 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 19.11.2025 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the defendant No. 1 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 2A/2013 and order dated 18.08.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Raipur, in review application MJC No. 117/2016, whereby the first appeal and review application have been dismissed. The first appeal No. 2A/2013 was arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2012 passed by learned 9th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 35A/2011, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed and decree has been passed in her favour for declaration of title of 1/6th share of the suit property, partition and separate possession. 2. For the sake of convenience, the status shown in the civil suit of the parties are being taken in the present appeal also. 3. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share over the suit property shown in Para-4 of the plaint, situated at Village- Temari, Tahsil and District- Raipur. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brother and sister and they are governed by the hindu law. The joint family were holding 2.902 Hec. of land. The father of the parties has died in the year 2003. The defendant No. 1 and 2 have got mutated 1.092 Hec. of land in their name which are the suit property. The suit property is ancestral property of the parties and all the parties are having equal share over it. After death of their father, 3 the defendant No. 2 has obtained signature of the plaintiff on a blank paper keeping her under assurance that all the family members of the joint family will get equal share over the property, and in the year 2008, when she demanded her share, the defendants are evading to give her share of the property. When she obtained the revenue record, she came to know that the defendant No. 1 and 2 have mutated their names alone in the revenue records and then the civil suit has been filed. 4. The defendant No. 1 resisted the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averment and pleaded in the written statement that during the life time of their father, he made a family arrangement between the members of the joint family and according to which, the suit land was obtained by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 have got land of Khasra No. 111, Area 3.28 Acre and he alienated it and the remaining land is recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and he alone is title and possession holder of the said property. 5. Defendant No. 2 to 5 have also contested the claim of the plaintiff and submitted their written statement jointly and pleaded that with the consent of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to 5, the suit lands were recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to 5 have executed a consent deed on 29.09.2005 and they relinquished their right and title over the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 2 and thus, the plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property as she already relinquished her right, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1- D;k okfnuh xzke Vsejh i0g0 0&115 jk0fu0e0 jk;iqj &1 rg- o ftyk jk;iqj fLFkr Hkwfe [k0u0&445@1 jdok 1-263 gs0 ,oa [k-u- 445@2 jdck 1-092 gs- Hkwwfe mudh iSr`d laifRr gksus ls mlds 1@6 va’k dh LoRokf/kdkjh gS \ 2- D;k okfnuh mDr oknxzLr Hkwfe ij mlds 1@6 va’k dk foHkktu dj i`Fkd vkf/kiR; izkIr djkus dh vkf/kdkfj.kh gS \ 3- D;k okfnuh lgefr i= fnukad 29-09-05 ds vk/kkj ij vius gd dk izfr0 dz&2 ds i{k esa ifjR;kx dj pqdh gS \ 4-D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe izfr0dz&2 dks vius firk ls ikfjokfjd O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj izkIr gqbZ gS\ 5- lgk;rk ,o okn O;; \ 7. In support of claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined herself as (PW/1) and she relied upon the documents (Ex-P/1 to P/4) which are the revenue documents and the complaint made before the authorities. The defendants have examined Yogesh Shukla (DW/1), Dinesh Shukla (DW/2), Damodar (DW/3) and the witnesses to the defendant No. 2 to 5 have also been examined as Suresh Shukla, witness to defendant No. 2/ (DW/1), Urvashi Diwan, witness to defendant No. 2/ (DW/2), Anil Dewangan, witness to defendant No. 2/ (DW/3) and Rashmi Dubey, witness to defendant No. 2/ (DW/4) and they relied upon the agreement Ex-D/1. 8. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the parties and their relations have not been disputed, however, the basis of the claim of the defendants that the plaintiff has relinquished her right over the property could not be established as the agreement (Ex-D/1) is an unregistered deed of relinquishment which is not admissible in accordance with law and defendants have failed to proof that the 5 plaintiff had relinquished her right from the property and considering the admitted position of the case that she is real sister of the defendant, her right cannot be relinquished over the property and passed the decree for declaration of her title and partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share. 9. The appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 has also been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, upholding the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with respect to the relation between the parties and admissibility of the agreement (Ex-D/1), hence this second appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff herself has executed the agreement (Ex-D/1) in which she clearly stated that after obtaining an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- she relinquished her share over the property, although, the deed is not admissible as it was unregistered, however, it creates a complete estopple against the plaintiff and now, she cannot claim to the partition from the joint family property. The father of the parties has made a family arrangement and according to which the suit property was obtained by him and he got his name mutated in the revenue record. He would also submit that the entire property has not been claimed for partition and the suit for partial partition is not maintainable, yet the learned courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff in her favour, declaring her 1/6th share over the suit property. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court. 12. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court as well as learned first appellate Court, it transpires that the 6 relationship between the parties are not in dispute, however, the learned trial Court has considered that the fact of family arrangement and partition have been denied by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 could not brought sufficient evidence with respect to their family arrangement or any evidence with respect to the fact that the suit property was given to him by their father. The learned trial Court has also considered that the defendant No. 1 has admitted in his evidence that his father is not executed any settlement deed and the partition of the family property has not been taken place. Further the learned trial Court has also declined the consider the agreement dated 16.11.2010 (Ex-D/1) which is unregistered document by which the right and title cannot be relinquished by the parties concerned and no benefit to the defendants can be extended by the said document (Ex-D/1). 13. It is settled law that relinquishment from the property can be made only by any registered deed or instruments, however, there is no evidence produced by the defendants that by any registered deed of relinquishment or any other document, the plaintiff has relinquished her share from the property of the joint family. Since, the relationship between the parties are not in dispute and there is no evidence that the plaintiff has relinquished her share and she ousted from the joint property in any manner, the decree has been passed by the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court. The issue of partition or allotment of share to the parties are a pure question of fact which has been concurrently adjudicated by the learned courts below. 14. In the matter of Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, reported in 2012 (7) SCC 288, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in 7 para 36 and 37 that:- 36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (Dead) by LRs and others v. Rattan Singh, it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another, it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors. 15. Considering the entire evidence available on record and on the judgment and decree passed by learned courts below, I do not find any perversity or illegality and no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in present appeal for its determination, accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed without issuing notice to the other side. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika