2025:CGHC:61235 NAFR Reserved on : 29.08.2025 Delivered on : 16.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 398 of 2017 1 - Balram Patel (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 29-04-2025) 1.1 - (A) Gomti Patel W/o Late Balram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - (B) Rashmi Patel W/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - (C) Harsh Patel S/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 8 Years Natural Guardian Wali Mother Rashmi Patel, W/o Late Mahendra Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Hardik Patel S/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 8 Years Natural Guardian Wali Mother Rashmi Patel, W/o Late Mahendra Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Suryawanshi, Aged About 39 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................. District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Res.1 : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. A/103/2015, whereby the learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2015 rendered by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 176-A/2014. By the said judgment, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit and directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit land and further directed to pay damage/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per annum with effect from 05.12.2011. 2. For convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court. 3. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 07.08.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:- “Whether, finding of the Courts below upholding due execution, attestation and validity of the registered deed of sale dated 08.06.1993 (Ex.P-5) despite upholding the part of registered deed of sale dated 03.04.1958 (Ex.P-16) executed by Krishna Bai and Sriram in favour of Defendant – Balram’s vendor Anandram and thereby awarding the mesne profits, is perverse? 4. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that 4.A) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 05.12.2011 seeking possession and damages mainly contending that the land bearing Khasra No. 216 area 0.28 Ha situated at village – Khamtarai, P.H. No. 17, R.I.C. Bilaspur, Tah and District – Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) is owned by the plaintiff. At the time when the plaintiff and his brother Sabaj Kumar were minors, their father Ram Khilawan Suryawanshi purchased the suit land from its previous owner Mithailal Satyarthi through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1993 and thereby acquired rights and possession over it. The plaintiff’s brother Manoj Kumar died unmarried. As the plaintiff is the sole legal heir, his name was recorded as the owner of the suit land in the revenue records. As such, defendant No. 1 has no right or share over the suit land. Likewise, he had no authority to sell the suit land to Ram Lal, Sehat Ram, or Mangal Prasad. Therefore, the sale deeds dated 06.08.1973 and 03.04.1958 are without authority and void, confer no rights upon defendant No. 1. 4.B) The plaintiff also contended that in July 2008, defendant No. 1 forcibly dispossessed him from the suit land, depriving him of the agricultural produce which he used to derive therefrom. The suit land, according to the plaintiff, yielded approximately eight bags of paddy annually. Hence, from the date of filing of the suit until restoration of possession, he is entitled to damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per year. The cause of action, therefore, is stated to have arisen in July 2008, when defendant No. 1 allegedly took illegal possession of the suit property. 4.C) The plaintiff subsequently moved an application for amendment in the plaint and defendant has moved an application for framing additional issues. The plaintiff by way of amendment has intended to plead that the sale deeds executed on 06.08.1973 and 03.04.1958 be declared as null and void and on the basis of that sale deed no right has been accrued to the defendant. The defendant No. 1 has also moved an application for framing additional issue on the count that he is title holder of the suit property on account of adverse possession. The defendant No. 1 filed an application for amendment and the plaintiff filed reply to the application for framing additional issues. Learned trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2013 allowed the application for amendment and rejected the application for framing additional issues filed by the defendant. 4.D) Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, contending, inter alia, that he had purchased the suit land from Ramlal, Sahas Ram, and Mangal Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 06.08.1973. It was pleaded that Krishna Bai and Mithailal had also accorded their consent to the said transaction. It has been contended that Defendant No. 1 has been in peaceful, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since the execution of the aforesaid sale deed. According to Defendant No. 1, the subsequent sale deed dated 08.06.1993, executed in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Manoj Kumar, is void ab initio, as Mithailal had no subsisting right or authority to convey title in respect of the suit land. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has managed to secure mutation of his name in the revenue records by collusion and manipulation. 4.E) Defendant No. 2 (State) has not filed any written statement to the suit. 4.F) Defendant No. 1 also filed counter-claim contending that defendant No. 1 had purchased the suit land from Ramlal, Sahas Ram and Mangal Prasad through a registered sale deed dated 06.08.1973, in which Krishna Bai and Mithailal had also given their consent. Defendant No. 1 has been in continuous possession of the suit land since the date of the said purchase. The suit land had earlier been purchased by late Anand Ram from Krishna Bai and Shri Ram through a sale deed dated 03.04.1958. However, Anand Ram’s name could not be recorded in the revenue records, yet he continued to remain in possession of the suit land from the date of its purchase. Thereafter, the sons of late Anand Ram executed a registered sale deed dated 06.08.1973 in favour of defendant No. 1, in which the signatures of Krishna Bai and Mithailal appear as consenting witnesses. The name of Anandram was recorded in the revenue records namely Correction Register Entry No. 975, dated 13.01.1959. Defendant No. 1 asserts that he has been in possession of the suit land since 1958. From 1958 to 1973, possession remained with late Anand Ram, and from 06.08.1973 onwards, defendant No. 1 has been cultivating and possessing the suit land. Thus, neither Mithailal nor his predecessors had any possession over the suit land after 1958. Defendant No. 1 further claims ownership over the suit land on the basis of hostile/adverse possession. Despite having no right over the suit land, Mithailal executed the sale deed dated 08.06.1993 in favour of the plaintiff, having full knowledge that he had no authority to do so. Hence, the said sale deed is void ab initio, and the plaintiff acquires no rights in the suit land. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 has filed the present counter- claim seeking a declaration of his title over the suit land, and further prayed that the registered sale deed dated 08.06.1993, executed between the plaintiff and Mithailal, be declared as null and void. 5. The plaintiff submitted his reply to the counter-claim contending that Ramlal, Sahas Ram and Mangal Prasad had no authority to sell the suit land. Therefore, the sale deed dated 06.08.1973 is void. Krishna Bai and Mithailal had not given any consent at the time of the alleged execution of the sale deed. Krishna Bai and Shri Ram also had no authority to sell the suit land. Hence, the sale deed dated 03.04.1958 is void. The suit land had been recorded in the revenue records in the names of Amrit, Krishna and Motim, who were the owners and persons in possession of the suit land. Motim’s son is Mithailal. After the death of Amrit and Motim, the suit land was recorded in the name of Mithailal in 1978 as their lawful heir. Mithailal thus became the rightful owner and person in possession of the suit land. In the year 1973, the suit land was not recorded in the name of Mithailal. Therefore, the alleged consent said to have been given by Mithailal is contrary to law. Krishna Bai too had no authority to give consent for the sale of the suit land. Mithailal executed the registered sale deed dated 08.06.1993 in favour of the plaintiff, Ramesh Kumar, and his brother Manoj Kumar. Manoj Kumar Suryavanshi died unmarried. Therefore, the plaintiff alone is the exclusive owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 1 unlawfully took possession of the suit land in 2008. The plaintiff and Manoj Kumar had purchased the suit land on 08.06.1993 and their names were mutated in the revenue records. After the death of Manoj Kumar, the suit land continued to stand in the name of the plaintiff. At no point of time the name of Ramlal, Santaram, or Mangal Prasad has ever been recorded in respect of the suit land. Anand Ram’s name also never appeared in the revenue records. Previously, Mithailal and his predecessors were in possession of the suit land. Thereafter, upon the plaintiff’s purchase, the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit land until 2008. 6. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as eight issues. Issue Nos. 1,2,5 and 6 are relevant for the present adjudication and are, therefore, areextracted hereinbelow:– 1- D;k oknHkwfe ekStk [kerjkbZ i-g-ua- 17 jk-fu-ea- fcykliqj] ftyk fcykliqj [kljk uacj 216 jdck 0-283 gsDVs;j oknh ds LokfeRo dh laifRr gS\ 2- D;k okn Hkwfe dk vkf/kiR; oknh izfroknh dz- 1 ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- D;k ekStk [kerjkbZ i-g-ua- 17 jk-fu-ea- fcykliqj] rglhy o ftyk fcykliqj [kljk ua-&216 jdck 0-07 ,dM+ Hkwfe izfroknh dza 1 dh LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dh laifRr gS\ 6- D;k izfroknh dza 1 iathd`r fodz; i= fnukad 08-06-1993 dks ‘kwU; ?kksf”kr djokus dh vkKfIr izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 7. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined himself as PW/1, Mithai Lal as PW/2, Sevak Ram as PW/3, Ram Prasad as PW/4 and exhibited documents Ex.P-1: Kishtbandi Khatauni for the year 2010–11, Ex.P-2: Khasra for the year 2011–12, Ex.P-3 Map, Ex.P-4: Bhū-Adhikār Rin Passbook, Ex.P-5: Sale Deed dated 08.06.1993, Ex.P-6: Certified copy of the Amendment Register, Ex.P-7: the Correction Register for the year 1954–55, Ex.P-8: Mutation Register Entry No. 535 / 19994 / 2000, Ex.P-9: Irrigation Department Water Tax Receipt, Ex.P-10: Rin Pustika of Mithai Lal and Ex.P-11: Khasra for the year 2010–11. 8. 8. The defendant to substantiate his case has examined himself as DW/1, Tarachand Patel as DW/2 and Parmanand as DW/3 and exhibited documents Ex.D/1: Original sale deed dated 06.08.1973, Ex.D/2: Original sale deed dated 03.04.1958, Ex.D/3: Correction Register dated 13.12.1973, Ex.D/4: Original Rin Passbok, Ex.D/4 to D/15 Irrigation Department Water Tax Receipt, Ex.D/16 certified copy of sale deed dated 03.04.1958. Page 9 of 19 9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 18.09.2015, decreed the suit and held that the suit land is the property of the plaintiff. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land as well as interim damages/mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per year from Defendant No. 1. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree the defendant preferred first appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code on 10.11.2015 before the Learned District Judge, Civil, District Bilaspur which was registered as Civil Appeal No. A/103/2015 contending that learned Trial Court has made a significant legal error in decreeing the suit. He has submitted water tax receipts issued by revenue and Government officials to show that he has been in possession of the suit land for the last approximately 40 years but it has been refused only because the Khasra number was not mentioned and passed a decree for delivery of possession, which is erroneous. The learned trial court ignored this material evidence and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and decree. On one hand it held that possession was not proved, yet on the other it granted a decree for possession, which is self-contradictory. The learned court failed to consider the revenue records and the correction register, wherein it is clearly mentioned that after the death of Anand Ram, the land was recorded in the names of Ramlal, Santgram, and Mangal Prasad. It has been furhter contended that if a father sells his self-acquired property, the son has no right to raise objections. In such circumstances, when the land was sold in favour of the defendant by the father and aunt of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has no right over the suit land. Further, after the land bearing the same Khasra number was sold to Anand Ram by Shriram (son of Ghasiram) and Krishna Bai, the subsequent sale of the same land by the son of Shriram in favour of another person is legally invalid and constitutes an offence. Thus, the order passed in favour of the plaintiff is incorrect, illegal, and would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Learned first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence and materials on record came to conclusion that the defendant has failed to produce any evidence or entry of his name in Khasra to show that he was in possession of the land, however, the plaintiff has produced evidence that land was in his possession in the year 2008, as such, the plaintiff has established the title over the suit property, accordingly it has dismissed the appeal. 12. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, the defendant has filed present Second appeal mainly contending that both the courts below have erred in giving finding that the defendant has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit land. Both the Courts below have also failed to appreciate that sale deed was executed by Krishna and Shriram in favour of Anandram and after taking consent from Krishna Bai and Mithailal, legal heirs of Anandram have executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff is bound by the principles of promissory estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act and the subsequent sale deed executed by Mithailal in favour of the plaintiff has no legal value. As such, the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse and liable to be quashed and would pray for allowing the appeal. The appeal has been admitted by this Court on the substantial question of law as aforesaid. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the courts below have committed a manifest error in holding that the plaintiff has established title over the suit land, overlooking the fact that the registered sale deed dated 06.08.1973 executed in favour of the appellant/defendant was never challenged by the plaintiff within the period of limitation. Consequently, the said sale deed has attained finality in the eyes of law, and the subsequent sale deed dated 08.06.1993 executed in favour of the plaintiff is void and inoperative. He would further submit that the family of Anand Ram had validly acquired the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 03.04.1958 executed by Krishna Bai and Shri Ram, and thereafter, upon obtaining their consent, the legal heirs of late Anand Ram executed the sale deed dated 06.08.1973 in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the plaintiff is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel as per Section 115 of the Evidence Act, and cannot deny the legality of the appellant’s title. 14. Learned counsel would further argue that the appellant has been in continuous possession since 1973, and prior thereto, possession remained with late Anand Ram from 1958 onwards. The water tax receipts, correction register entries, and revenue records produced by the appellant demonstrate long-standing possession, which the courts below have failed to appreciate. It has been further urged that the findings of both the courts below regarding possession are perverse and contrary to evidence and deserve to be set aside and would pray for allowing the appeal. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dehiben Vs. Arvindhbai kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(d) Thru Lrs and Others {2020 SAR (Civ) 793}, Jamia Begum (D) Thr. Lrs Vs Shami Mohd (D) Thr. Lrs and Anr {2019 SAR (Civil) 166}, Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr vs. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji & Anr. {2024 SAR(Civil) 1000}, Ajit Kaur @ Surjit Kaur vs. Darshan Singh (Dead) by Lrs and Ors {2019 AIR (Civil) 410} and judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh in case of Mohd. Ashraf and Another vs. M.P. Housing Board and Other {2011 (1) MPLJ 444}. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 would submit that both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit land, based on the registered sale deed dated 08.06.1993 executed by Mithailal, the lawful heir of the original recorded owners, and the corresponding mutation entries in the revenue records. It is further argued that the appellant has utterly failed to produce any documentary evidence showing his name recorded in the Khasra or revenue records at any point of time. Mere production of water tax receipts, without mention of the relevant Khasra number, does not establish possession or title. The alleged sale deeds dated 03.04.1958 and 06.08.1973 are without authority and void, since Krishna Bai and Shri Ram had no right to transfer the suit land, and the so-called consent of Mithailal in 1973 is fabricated and contrary to the revenue records. The original owners were Amrit, Krishna and Motim, and after their deaths, Mithailal alone became the recorded owner in 1978. It is argued that the findings of the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence—Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-11, including Khasra entries, mutation records, Rin Pustika, and the 1993 sale deed, all of which prove possession and ownership of the plaintiff until the appellant forcibly dispossessed him in 2008. The plea of adverse possession raised by the appellant is untenable, as he has neither proved continuous, hostile possession against the true owner. It is, therefore, submitted that the concurrent findings of fact by both the courts are sound, well-reasoned, and not liable to be interfered in second appeal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Finding on substantial question of law 17. To appreciate the substantial question of law framed by this Court, this Court has to refer the evidence adduced before the trial Court. The plaintiff’s witness PW/1 Ramesh Kumar in examination-in-chief has stated that the sale deed dated 06.08.1973 and 03.04.1958 is void ab initio as Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangal Ram had no right to sell the property, as such on account of void ab initio sale deed, the defendant No.1 has accrued no right over the suit property. The said witness was extensively cross-examined by the defendants and in the cross- examination he has admitted that Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangal Ram are nephews of Mithailal and son of Anand Ram. He has also denied that when the defendant has purchased the suit property, then Mithailal and Krishna Bai have given the consent and also denied that Anand Ram was in possession of the suit property from 1958 to 1973. 18. The star witness of the plaintiff Mithailal PW/2 who was examined by way of affidavit has stated that the suit property was recorded in the name of mother Motim Bai and maternal aunt Krishna Bai and being legal heirs he was in possession of the suit property as he became title holder. He has also stated that he has sold the property to Ramesh and his brother in the year 1993 as he was successor and his name was recorded in the revenue record. He has clearly stated that he has not given any consent to Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangal Prasad for selling the suit property. He has stated that in the suit property name of Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangal Prasad was not recorded whereas his name was recorded in the year 1978. The witness was extensively cross-examined but nothing was brought on record to rebut the said statement even the defendant has not cross-examined the witness regarding his signature as consenting party in the sale deed Ex.D/1, though the burden lies upon the defendant that Mithailal has given the consent which has been denied by Mithailal in his evidence. 19. The defendant’s witness in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not submitted Khasra Panchsala of any year. He has also admitted that in the Ex.D/2 there is no description of the suit property. He has also admitted that three sons of Anand Ram were not recorded in the revnue record voluntarily stated that Mithailal s/o Shreeram has given the consent at the time of purchase of property by him. He has also admitted that he is not aware who were present at the time execution of the sale deed Ex.D/1. He has also admitted that at present in the revenue record name of plaintiff Ramesh has been recorded. He has also admitted that in the revenue record his name was not recorded is known to him since 1975. The witness has also admitted that Mithailal is son of Motim and Shreeram. He has also admitted that names of Ramlal, Mangal and Sahasram were not recorded in the revenue record. Thus, it is quite vivid that names of the Ramlal, Mangal and Sahasram were not recorded as owner of the suit property in the revenue record. In absence of any right accrued to them the sale deed executed by Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangal Ram cannot supersede the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by the original land owner whose name has been recorded in the revenue record since 1978. 20. Thus, the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has rightly decreed the suit which has been affirmed after reappreciation of evidence and material on record by the first appellate Court. 21. The learned trial Court while recording its finding with regard to execution of sale deed in the year 1958 in favour of Anandram by Sriram, has given its finding that the defendant has not assigned any reason why the name of Anandram has not been recorded in the revenue record and even the defendant has not proved that Sriram has title over the suit property. Accordingly, it has recorded its finding that the execution of sale deed by Krishna Bai in favour of Anandram is established but these documents were not known to anybody regarding its existence and they have also not made any attempt to record their name in the revenue record through they are aware since 1995 that the suit property in the year 1993 which shows that the transaction between Anandram and Krishna Bai is Sham transaction. 22. The learned trial Court examining the conduct of the defendant and the events took place has given this finding which is based upon materials placed before it. As such, it cannot be found faulty or suffers from perversity or illegality. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper as there is no challenge that the sale deed executed in the year 1958 is forged one though the pleadings were made but no issues were framed and neither the plaintiff nor defendant moved any application for framing additional issues on the subject of declaring the sale deed to be null and void. Thus, the learned trial Court rightly without declaring the sale deed of 1958 and 1973 as null and void has held that the sale deed executed in 1993 is legal and justified. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court upholding sale deed dated 08.06.1993 is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence or pleadings made by the parties. 23. The learned trial Court has awarded mesne profit in favor of the plaintiff and recorded its finding in paragraph 37 that the defendant has taken forceful possession of the suit property in the year 2008 depriving the plaintiff to use the suit property according to his convenience. The quantum of mesne profit awarded by the learned trial Court affirmed by the first appellate Court is neither excessive nor on a lower side warranting interference by this Court. The substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves to be answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. 24. The further submission for the learned counsel for the defendant that in view of provisions contained in Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale deed executed in the year 1973 will be given priority to the sale deed which has been executed subsequently in the year 1993, as such, the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant should have been given priority is being considered by this Court. 25. To appreciate this submission this Court has examined the provisions of Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. From perusal of Section 48 it is quite vivid that if the person purports to create transfer at different times, rights in or over the same immovable property and such rights cannot exist or be exercised to their full extent together each later created right shall in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transfer, be subject to the rights previously created. From the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, it is quite vivid that these provisions are not applicable to the present facts of the case as the defendant has purchased the suit property from Ramlal, Sahasram and Mangalram who were not recorded as title holder of the suit property as such, the defendant cannot shelter of protection granted under Section 48 of the Act as they were not registered seller and they cannot create transfer at different right in or over the same immovable property, thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is protected under Section 48 of the Act is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 26. It is well settled legal position of law that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be. The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact. In view of the above preposition of law it is quite vivid that this Court could not interfere with the findings of fact recorded after appreciation of evidence merely because this Court thought that another view would be a better view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 78, Pakeerappa Rai v. Seethamma Hengsu, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 521, Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 71, Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 has examined the scope of interference by the High Court in the Second Appeal. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the law on the subject, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below do not warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 28. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.12.16 16:02:44 +0530