1 2025:CGHC:59827 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 556 of 2013 Bachhu Ram, aged about 57 years, S/o Late Dewar Gond, R/o Village Badwar (Kanak Nagar), P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, Civil and Revenue District Surajpur C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 – Budhia, aged about 67 years, D/o Thaula Caste Bargah, R/o Village Badwar (Kanak Nagar), P.S. and Tahsil Pratappur, Civil and Revenue District Surjapur (C.G.). 2 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Surguja, Place- Ambikapur, (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 09.12.2025 1. The second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 26- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.11 10:53:04 +0530 2 A/2012, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court have been affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had instituted the civil suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land admeasuring 3.89 hectares, situated at Village Badwar alias Kanak Nagar, P.H. No. 13, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur. It was pleaded that the father of the plaintiff, Dewar Gond, had originally acquired 9.74 acres in the Surguja State Survey Settlement, which, upon completion of the settlement proceedings, was renumbered and described in Schedule “A” appended to the plaint. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1962, and thereafter, the father of defendant/respondent No. 1, namely Thaula, entered upon the suit lands under an arrangement of “Adhia” with the permission of the plaintiff’s mother. 3. It was further pleaded that around the year 1993, upon the death of said Thaula, defendant No. 1 stopped giving the agreed half share of the crop and denied the relationship of Adhia. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the name of Thaula had been mutated in the revenue records over the suit lands fraudulently, and after his death, the name of defendant No. 1 was 3 also mutated. An application for mutation filed by the plaintiff before the Tahsildar, Pratappur, was rejected on 07.03.1994. 4. The plaintiff further pleaded that he had thereafter filed an application under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pratappur (for short ‘SDO’), seeking reversion of the land, which was allowed on 30.07.2001, and his name was mutated accordingly. However, the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 was allowed by the Collector, Surguja, on 11.03.2002, remanding the matter to the SDO for fresh consideration. Subsequently, by order dated 23.01.2004, the SDO rejected the plaintiff’s application, compelling him to file the civil suit. 5. Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement denying the plaint allegations and pleaded that the suit lands were acquired and possessed by her father, Thaula, during his lifetime, and that the entries made in the name of Dewar Gond during settlement were illegal. She contended that after the death of her father, she inherited the property and had her name mutated in the year 1990. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was aware that the land was recorded in the name of her father as early as 1954–55, and therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Objections regarding valuation and court fee were also raised. 6. Defendant No. 1 further filed a counter-claim, asserting that neither the plaintiff nor his father was ever in possession of the 4 suit land and that her father had remained in possession prior to 1954–55. On the basis of continuous, open and hostile possession, she claimed title by way of adverse possession, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. 7. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and allowed the counter-claim of defendant No. 1. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the learned Additional District Judge, Pratappur, also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012. Hence, the present second appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has committed serious errors of law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and simultaneously decreeing the counter-claim of the defendant. It is urged that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are contrary to the evidence available on record and hence the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the defendant did not adduce any evidence to establish the source of her title over the suit property. Mere entries in the revenue records in the names of the ancestors of the defendant for the year 1954–55 could not have been treated as proof of lawful acquisition of title, particularly when the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the land was originally acquired by his ancestors and that the subsequent 5 substitution of the name of the defendant ancestors was illegal. The Courts below ought to have considered that such entries, made in violation of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, do not confer title, yet the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, which is wholly erroneous. 9. It is further contended that the counter-claim filed by the defendant was not maintainable in law. The defendant was admittedly not in possession of the suit land, and in the absence of any relief for possession, no executable decree could have been passed in her favour. The Courts below failed to consider this fundamental defect while decreeing the counter-claim, rendering the impugned findings unsustainable. It is contended that the Courts below have also erred in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It is pleaded that the plaintiff continued in possession and that the defendant was cultivating the land only with the permission of the plaintiff and his mother under an “Adhia” arrangement. When the defendant for the first time denied the plaintiff’s title, the cause of action arose, and the suit was filed thereafter. Thus, the suit could not have been treated as barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The contrary finding recorded by the Courts below is manifestly erroneous. 10. It is also urged that the defendant took mutually destructive pleas. In the written statement, she claimed the suit property as 6 ancestral property, whereas in the counter-claim, she asserted title on the basis of adverse possession. These contradictory stands could not have been accepted simultaneously, yet the Courts below failed to appreciate the inconsistency and proceeded to decree the counter-claim without any cogent evidence establishing adverse possession. He further submits that the Courts below misdirected themselves in holding that the plaintiff was not in possession and that the suit was defective for want of a prayer for possession. The plaintiff had clearly sought a decree of declaration and injunction on the assertion that he was in settled possession of the suit land. In such circumstances, no separate relief for possession was required. The contrary finding of the Courts below is perverse. 11. Lastly, it is submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and have reached conclusions which are wholly unsustainable in law. There is ample evidence on record supporting the plaintiff’s case, but the same has not been considered, warranting interference in second appeal. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be admitted for final hearing. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. It is contended 7 that the defendant has established her title and long-standing possession, and the plaintiff’s suit was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation and devoid of merit. The decree passed on the counter-claim is justified and calls for no interference in second appeal. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have also carefully perused the entire record of the case with utmost circumspection. 14. From perusal of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the First Appellate Court, it transpires that the appellate authority has carefully examined the entire record of the case, including the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the submissions advanced by the parties. The First Appellate Court has noted that the Trial Court had meticulously analyzed the contentions raised by the plaintiff/appellant as well as the counter-claim filed by the defendant/respondent. 15. It is evident from the record that the Trial Court had rightly observed that the defendants, through their predecessor Late Thaula, had been in long, continuous, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since 1954-55. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that the plaintiff/appellant had failed to establish that his father, Late Dewar Gond, or he himself had been in continuous possession of the suit land since the time of the Surguja State Survey Settlement. The Trial Court also took 8 note of the fact that the plaintiff/appellant had knowledge of the revenue entries in the name of Late Thaula and, despite such knowledge, had neither challenged the entries in a timely manner nor raised any dispute during the lifetime of Late Dewar Gond. 16. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiff/appellant’s claim was inconsistent, as he alternately asserted possession under ancestral ownership while simultaneously seeking relief under Section 170(b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959. The Trial Court concluded that in view of the continuous possession of the defendants and the absence of substantiated evidence on the part of the plaintiff/appellant, the suit was both unmaintainable and barred by limitation. Consequently, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff/appellant’s suit and allowed the counter-claim of the defendant/respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 17. The First Appellate Court, upon detailed examination of the Trial Court’s findings, rightly affirmed the decision. It noted that the evidence presented by the defendant was consistent, uncontradicted, and corroborated by revenue records and documentary evidence. The Appellate Court also observed that the admissions made by the plaintiff/appellant in cross- examination reinforced the Trial Court’s conclusion that the defendants had been in peaceful possession for several decades, 9 and the plaintiff/appellant could not claim ownership merely on the basis of the original settlement entry in the name of his father. 18. From a careful and detailed perusal of the record, it clearly appears that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case with respect to ownership, possession, or entitlement to any injunctive relief in respect of the suit property. The evidence on record does not demonstrate that the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property, nor has he been able to prove any valid and subsisting title in his favor. On the contrary, the defendant has been found to be in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property, which possession is duly corroborated by the revenue records marked as Ex. P/1, reflecting their ownership over a considerable period of time. 19. It is further observed that the plaintiff’s contentions are unsupported by cogent evidence, and the claims advanced are inconsistent and legally unsustainable. The Trial Court, after a meticulous appreciation of evidence, had rightly concluded that the defendants’ possession was lawful and continuous, and the plaintiff’s suit was both unsubstantiated and devoid of merit. The First Appellate Court, in a detailed and reasoned order, has rightly upheld the findings of the Trial Court, noting that there was no infirmity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence that could justify interference in the second appeal. 10 20. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the present second appeal does not raise any substantial question of law or merit that warrants admission. The second appeal is, therefore, wholly without merit. 21. In view of above, this Court do not find any justification for its admission, and accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh