1 2025:CGHC:61713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 558 of 2019 1 - Mu. Dayamani W/o Late Sonsai Aged About 60 Years 2 - Lakhiram S/o Sonsai Aged About 38 Years 3 - Shobhram S/o Sonsai Aged About 38 Years 4 - Ramesh S/o Dalsai Aged About 28 Years 5 - Ransai S/o Somaru Aged About 63 Years 6 - Dhirsai S/o Somaru Aged About 61 Years 7 - Shuklal S/o Somaru Aged About 59 Years 8 - Astu S/o Somaru Aged About 57 Years 9 - Budhsingh S/o Somaru (Died During Pendency of Appeal, His Legal Representatives are- 9 (a). Shobhawati D/o Late Somaru 9 (b) Shersingh S/o Late Somaru 9 (c) Narsingh S/o Late Somaru All R/o Village Junavni, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Anatram S/o Maner Aged About 68 Years 2 - Smt. Sonmati D/o Mahadas Aged About 40 Years 3 - Bhagatram S/o Maner Aged About 69 Years 4 - Ramdas S/o Maner Aged About 59 Years 5 - Tulsiram S/o Chaitu Aged About 63 Years 6 - Tularam S/o Chaitu Aged About 53 Years 7- Shibo S/o Chaitu (Died During Pendency of Appeal, His Legal Representatives are - 7 (a) Ramvati W/o Shibo Aged About 45 Years 7 (b) Damru S/o Shibo Aged About 28 Years 7 (c) Pitwas S/o Shibo Aged About 25 Years 7(d) Sheshani S/o Shibo Aged About 30 Years 8 - Shankr S/o Chaitu (Died During Pendency of Appeal, His Legal Representatives are - 8 (a) Asmati W/o Shankar Aged About 42 Years 8 (b) Parmanand S/o Shankar Aged About 24 Years 8 (c) Amir S/o Shankar Aged About 20 Years 8 (d) Sangeeta D/o Shankar Aged About 22 Years All R/o Village Junavni, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 9 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.12.19 17:11:17 +0530 2 For Appellants : Shri Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/ : Shri Abhishek Nirala on behalf of Shri Defendants Praveen Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 17.12.2025 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, in Civil Appeal No.39-A//2018 whereby the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs have been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2018 passed by IIIrd Civil Judge, Class-I, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.26-A/2015 has been affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for declaring the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the SDO (Revenue) Bastar and the order dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Tehsildar Bakawand, as null and void. The plaintiffs claimed their title over the suit land Khasra Nos. 40/1,43/1,1/1 and 77, total area 2.22 Hect. situated at village Junavni, PH No.46 Tehsil Bakawand, District Bastar. The plaintiffs have pleaded in their suit that one Fagu Mahra was having 2 sons namely Sudhru and Antu. Smt. Mahangi Bai was the wife of Sudhru. Sudhru and Mahangi Bai died issueless. Somaru was the son of Antu from whom the plaintiffs No.4 to 9 were born. The plaintiff No.1 Dayamati was the wife of Sonsai from whom the plaintiff No.2&3 were born. In the year, 1964-65, the suit land was recorded in the name of Somaru and it was his ancestral property. In the year 3 1991-92 the Khasra numbers of their land was changed and new khasra numbers 78, 206 and 217 came. Sudhru and Antu jointly cultivating the lands, but as per the custom of Bastar Riyasat the name of eldest member of the family is to be recorded in the revenue records and therefore the name of Sudhru was recorded in the revenue records. After death of Sudhru in the year 1950-51 the land was recorded in the name of his wife Smt. Mahangi Bai and she remained in possession of the suit land along with her brother in law Antu. Smt. Mahangi Bai sold 4.75 Acre of land to Lachhandei through registered sale deed dated 02.01.1954 and 5.45 Acre of land was remaining with the family which is the land of Antu’s share. Antu died prior to death of Mahangi and after death of Mahangi, the land was recorded in the name of Somaru who is the son of Antu. The defendants have no relation with the family of plaintiffs and without there being any right or title, that too after 40 years, they filed an application before Tehsildar Bakawand for cancellation of mutation of Somaru Mahra which was carried on 19.01.1965. The Tehsildar Bakawand passed an order on 26.07.2013 and directed for mutation of the name of defendants over the suit land. The appeal filed before the SDO have also been dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2015 and thus the present civil suit has been filed. 3. The defendants No.1 to 8 contested the claim of the plaintiffs, filed their written statement; denied the plaint averment and submitted that from Sudhru and Mahangi three daughters namely Vaidehi, Dharmika and Lachhandei were born. Dharmika married with one Kodu and they died issuless. Vaidehi married with Maner from whom Mahadas, Anantram, 4 Bhagatram and Ramdas were born. Lachhandei married with Chaitu from whom Tulsi, Tula Shibo and Shankar were born. Antu is not the son of Fagu Mahra. In the year, 1931-32 total 7.64 Acre of land was recorded in the name of Sudhru and subsequently he also earned certain land on or abour 1950 and as per Jamabandi of the year 1943- 44, Sudhru was having 10.22 Acre of land which was recorded in the name of his wife Mahangi after death of Sudhru. Mahangi sold 4.75 Acre of land to Lachhandei and the remaining land of 5.47 Acre was cultivated by Mahangi. Mahangi died in the year, 1964 and thereafter Somaru got her land recorded in his name without informing the legal heirs of Mahangi Bai. Sudhru was the sole son of Fagu Mahra. Antu was a resident of Odisha who came to village as Cattle Grazzer and resided in the house of Mahangu Bhatra. The son of Antu namely Somaru performed love marriage with the daughter of Parau Bhatra and therefore he was expelled from the community. It was also pleaded that on account of murder of one Rajesh, Ramdas, Shibo and Shankar were convicted and they remained in jail and plaintiffs encroached over their land during that period and filed the present suit. The Tehsildar and SDO have passed a mutation order in favour of defendants and the second appeal filed before the Commissioner was withdrawn by the plaintiffs and thus the plaintiffs have no cause of action in their favour and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, the trial court framed issues and went for trial. The plaintiffs examined Astu, PW-1, Ran Sai, PW-2, Suwa Ram PW-3 and relied upon documents of sale deed Ex.P/1, order of Tehsildar P/2, order of SDO, Ex.P/3, B-1 Kistbandi P/4, 5 Khasra Panchsala Ex.P/5 & 6, Patwari Map P/7, Sansodhan Panji P/8 & P/9, Jamabandi P/10, B-1 Kistbandi P/11 & P/12, Record Abhilekh P/13 and Patwari Map P/14. The defendants have examined DW-1, Bhagat Ram and relied upon documents Ex.D/1 which is the order passed by the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue Circuit Court, Jagdalpur, dated 24.09.2009 and the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Bastar Division, Ex.D/2. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and after having gone through the records, the trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs have not disclosed the complete facts. They also failed to disclose genealogy of the parties. From documents Ex.P/10 to P/12 the trial court has considered that suit lands were self acquired property of Fagu and thereafter it was recorded in the name of his son Sudhru and thereafter in the name of Mahangi. The trial court has also considered that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Antu is the brother of Sudhru and revenue courts have also rightly considered that Antu is not the brother of Sudhru and as such they have passed an order for mutation of the name of defendants in the revenue records. 6. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the plaintiffs before the first appellate court which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.06.2019 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, against which the present Second Appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the claim of respondents are based on revenue records which 6 does not give title to them. After death of Mahangi the name of father of plaintiffs No.5 to 9 and father in law of plaintiffs No.1 were recorded and after about 40 years the defendants have filed the application for mutation of their names and exercising jurisdiction of such a long time of 40 years, all the proceeding are illegal. The courts below have also erred in saying that incomplete genealogy have been produced by the plaintiffs and the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are based on misappreciation of evidence. There are sufficient evidence on record that plaintiffs are legal heirs of Fagu who was the father of Antu and Sudhru. Since Sudhru died issuless, the entire property is inherited by Antu and his legal heirs. Therefore, the second appeal involves the substantial question of law for its determination. 8. I have heard the counsel for the appellants, perused the record of trial court and have gone through the evidence. 9. From perusal of documents filed by the parties in the case and the evidence led by them, it transpires from document Ex.P/10 i.e. Girdavali record of 1943-44, that 10.22 Acres of land was recorded in the name of Sudhru alone. In the record of 1952-53 and 1953-54 i.e. after death of Sudhru, the lands were recorded in the name of his wife Mahangi. The name of Antu was never recorded in the revenue record along with Mahangi even after death of Sudhru. Although in the document Ex.P/9 which is the Sanshodhan Panji of the year 1965 the name of Somaru was recorded after death of Mahangi as the son of Antu who is alleged to be brother of Somaru. The plaintiffs could not produce any evidence that at the time of mutation of the name of Somaru in the year 1964-65, after death of Mahangi, their legal heirs 7 were made as party in the mutation proceeding or Antu was the brother of Sudhru. The defendants were legal heirs of Sudhru and Mahangi which was found proved by the revenue authorities. The trial court, after considering the evidence produced by the parties held that the plaintiffs could not prove that Antu was the son of Fagu and brother of Sudhru and they have no right or title over the suit property which was the property of Sudhru and Mahangi and the defendants are legal heirs of Sudhru and Mahangi. It was also held by the trial court that the revenue courts have rightly passed the order in favour of defendants for mutation of their names in the revenue records. When the plaintiffs could not prove by leading cogent evidence that Antu was son of Fagu Mahra, the plaintiffs cannot be inherited the property of Fagu Mahra or Sudhru. 10. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been affirmed by the first appellate court holding that plaintiffs have failed to prove their case by leading sufficient evidence and filing documents. The documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties would sufficiently show the title of property over the defendants and they were the legal heirs of Sudhru and Mahangi Bai and preponderance of probability goes in their favour. From the document Ex.P/10 to P/12 it is clear that the suit properties were recorded in the name of Sudhru in the year 1943-44, which after death of Sudhru came in the name of Mahangi Bai in the year 1952-53. Mahangi Bai died in the year 1963- 64 and thereafter the land was recorded in the name of Somaru by saying that Mahangi Bai is his elder mother who died issuless whereas, in the case it is found that the defendants are legal heir of 8 Sudhru and Mahangi Bai. The plaintiffs have also not proved that the suit land were jointly acquired by Sudhru and Antu. The revenue records as well as the evidence are not sufficient to grant relief to the plaintiffs in the suit. The claim of plaintiffs are based on their mutation entries in the revenue records which does not give any right or title over the property as has been settled by catena of decisions of Supreme Court that revenue entries does not create or extinguish any title over the person in whose name the revenue entries have been made. It is only for fiscal purposes and to keep the records updated. 11. In Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, 2012 (7) SCC 288, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 36 & 37 as under : “36.In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (Dead) by LRs and others[15], 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[16], 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.” 12. After meticulous examination of evidence available on record, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as appellate court. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on proper appreciation of 9 evidence and this court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the case for its determination. 13. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed without noticing the other side. The parties shall bear their own cost. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder