1 2025:CGHC:56359 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 323 of 2016 1 - Budhu And Others S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 25 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Suko S/o Nadni, Aged About 50 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sonu S/o Bahadur, Aged About 30 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sonau S/o Bahadur, Aged About 30 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Mangri Wd/o Bahadur, Aged About 48 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Duvaru S/o Sahadur, Aged About 48 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 7 - Laxman S/o Sahadur, Aged About 48 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 8 - Mankaye Wd/o Sahadur, Aged About 65 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 9 - Chaitu S/o Chaitman, Aged About 46 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Palli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ..................Plaintiffs, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Lakhmu And Others S/o Denga, Aged About 60 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Usri, Bedapalli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Andhari S/o Denga, Aged About 80 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Usri, Bedapalli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.07 10:52:42 +0530 2 3 - Ramadhar S/o Soma, Aged About 30 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Usri, Bedapalli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Moti S/o Soma, Aged About 60 Years Caste- Muriya, R/o Village- Usri, Bedapalli, Tehsil And District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh , District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ...................Defendants, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment 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 plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.05.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon in Civil Appeal No. 6- A/16, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Kondagaon in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2011 has been affirmed. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for declaration of title over the suit property of village Palli Tahsi Kondagaon, District Baster shown in schedule-A of the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that their grandfather Gunde son of Aaytu was having his self-acquired property of 33.73 acre of agricultural land at village Palli. Gunde was having four sons namely Nadi, Chetman, Bahadur and Sahadur. After death of sons of Gunde the names of the present plaintiffs have been 3 mutated in the revenue records. Their grandfather Gunde have partitioned their family property between his four sons and the plaintiffs are cultivating their agricultural fields as per their partition. The grandfather of the plaintiff namely Gunde and his brother Pucchi were residing together and his another brother Denga was residing separately. The father of the defendants were no right or title over the suit property, however, the grandfather of the plaintiff had given 7.00 acre of land to Denga to earn his livelihood. After death of Denga, the said land were earned by his son Lakhmu. Out of total 33.73 acres of land, about 5 acres of land was sub-merged in Narangi River, 2 acres of land is used by the villagers as the public road and 7 acres of land was given to Denga and now the plaintiffs have remained 19.73 acre of land. Without any notice, the defendants have got mutated their names also in the revenue records of the suit land and made an application for partition before the Tahsildar Kondagaon. The plaintiffs have raised objection and thereafter, under the provisions of Section 178 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,1959, the Tahsildar Kondagaon has directed the parties to get their title decided by the competent Civil Court and then the civil suit has been filed. 3. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and filed their written statement, denied the plaint averment and pleaded that their grandfather Aaytu was having three sons namely Gunde, Puchi, Denga and the suit properties were cultivated by all the three brothers. As per the Baster manual, at that time only the name of elder member of the family was to be recorded in the revenue records, however, all the three members were having title and possession over the suit property and as per the Baster manual the name of Gunde was recorded in the 4 revenue record. After death of Gunde the name of his legal heirs have been recorded and after death of Puchi and Denga the names of their legal heirs have also been recorded in the revenue records. Since the property was still recorded jointly in the revenue records and therefore, they have filed the application for partition of the suit property. The suit properties was not the self-acquired property of Gunde, but it was the ancestral property and all the three brothers and they have equal share over the same. The suit properties were recorded in the names of all the three brothers since 1954 – 55 but the same has not been challenged by the plaintiffs till date and only to deprive the right of the defendants, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings made by the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues: वाद - ्ቚ्቞ 01- क्या वाद ्ቇस्त स्ቘቈኌ रकबा 33.73 एकड जिसक वा्ቓन अनसची अ ेሰ किकया गया है"। स्वा. गण्ड% क& स्वाअቌኌ(त स्ቘቈኌ थी ? 02- क्या वाद*ग्ቓ वाद ्ቇस्त स्ቘቈኌ 33.73 एकड़ क% स्वात्वाधि.कर है".? 03- क्या वाद*ग्ቓ वाद ्ቇस्त स्ቘቈኌ ेሰ% 7.00 एकड ्ቚकितवाद* क.-1 क तथी 5.00 एकड़ डबान ቌኔ%्ቔ एवा2 2.00 एकड़ आेሰ रस्त बातन% क% कर्ቓ क% वाल 19.73 एकड़ क स्वात्वाधि.कर है"? 04- सहैयात एवा2 ्ቤया ? अति रिक् वाद ्ቚ्቞ 05- क्या वाद स2पद क उभया पቌኔकर9 क% ेሰध्या आपस परिरवारिरक बा2टवार पवा ेሰ% है किकया गया है" जिसक% अनसर उभया पቌኔकर ककिबा कश्त है" ? 5. In support of their respective claims the plaintiffs have examined Duaruram PW-1, Pandru PW-2, Mahangu PW-3, Ram Chandra PW-4, Kamlu Ram PW-5 and they relied upon documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/34 which are the revenue records of the suit properties. The defendants 5 have examined Laxmuram DW-1, Padam Yadav DW-2 and Parau Markam DW-3 and they relied upon the documents Ex.D/1 to D/4 which are the revenue records of the Adhikar Abhilekh of the 1954-55 and subsequent and revenue entries. 6. After due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court comes into the conclusion that as per the Baster manual only the name of elder member of the family was recorded in the revenue records of the suit land and according to which the name of Gunde was recorded, however, all the three brothers Gunde, Puchi and Denga were cultivating the suit properties jointly and all the three brothers were having title and possession over the same. The learned trial Court has also considered that in the document Ex.D/1, the name of Gunde, Puchi and Denga were recorded and they have not challenged the said document till date and they have admitted in their evidence also that as per the Baster manual the name of only elder brothers was to be recorded in the revenue records. PW-1 Duaru have also admitted that the suit property was acquired by Gunde and Puchi and Gunde, Puchi and Dega were residing jointly from inception and all of them were cultivating together. The learned trial Court has also comes into conclusion on the basis of evidence produced by the parties that there was no partition amongst the family members of the parties and plaintiffs are not the sole title and possession holder of the property, and accordingly, suit was dismissed. 7. In the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs while affirming the consideration of the learned trial Court, the learned first appellate Court was also considered that since 1958-59, till date the plaintiff has not challenged 6 the said entries in the revenue records. However, he filed the suit in the year 2005 which is after about 45 years and apparently barred by limitation. The learned first appellate Court has also relied upon the document Ex.D/1 in which the names of Gunde, Pucchi, Denga were recorded and subsequently in other revenue records the names of the legal heirs of the three brothers have been recorded. Since the plaintiff himself has admitted that as per the Baster manual the names of only elder brother was to be recorded in the revenue records and other members of the family were also having right and title over the property, the claim of the plaintiff was negated and the appeal was also dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court has not considered the evidence available in its right perspective and came into erroneous conclusion. He would submit that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Gunde and in the record of rights of the year 1924-25 his name has been recorded. The learned trial Court has also not considered the document Ex.P/4 to Ex.P/30 which are the document of title of late Gunde as the same is self-acquired property. There was a family arrangement with respect to the family property and the parties separately cultivating their lands although it was not formally partitioned in the revenue records, however, the long family arrangement can get the status of valid partition under the law, yet the said proposition of law has been ignored by the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court. The learned Courts below has also ignored the fact that the revenue entries are presumed to be correct until the same is rebutted and in the present case the defendants have 7 failed to rebut the entries of the revenue records. The admissions made by the witnesses in their evidence have also not been considered properly and to get benefit of mutation of the names of defendants, they have filed the application for partition which gives rise the present suit, however, the suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court on erroneous considerations, therefore, there is substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its consideration. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. 10. It was the case of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court that the suit property was recorded in the name of late Gunde who was the grandfather of the plaintiffs and after his death, the suit property was recorded in the name of his four sons and during his life time, Gunde has partitioned his property amongst his four sons and all of them are cultivating as per their partition. The Denga was not having any agricultural land, therefore, Gunde has given 7 acre of land to Denga for his livelihood, Pucchi was not having any right or title over any of the properties. After having sub-merged about 7 acres of land, public road of 2 acre of land and the defendant No.1 is in possession of 7 acre of land, the remaining land of 19.73 acre is remaining and the defendant with the collusion of the revenue authorities, get his name mutated in the revenue records and filed an application for partition. The plaintiffs evidence supported the fact that in the Missal Bandobast Riyasat Baster 1924-25 (Ex.P/3), 23.55 acre of land is recorded in the name of Gunde. After death of Gunde the names of his LRs is recorded in the revenue records of the year 1954-55 Ex.P/2. The 8 learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the witnesses of PW-1 Duaru who admitted in Para-15 of his evidence that the legal heirs of Pucchi are having right and title over the property of Gunde. 11. PW-2 Pandru has also stated in his evidence that the suit property was earned by Gunde and Pucchi and admitted that Gunde, Pucchi and Denga were resided together and Lakhmu, Nari, Chetman, Bahadur, Sahadur were residing together. PW-4 Ramchand also admitted that during the life time of Aaytu the suit property was earned by Aaytu along with his three brothers. It is also admitted by PW-4 at the time of Baster Riyasat, the name of elder member of the family was to be recorded in the revenue record and in view thereof the name of Gunde was recorded in the revenue record because he was the eldest member of the family. The same was the evidence made by DW-2 Padam Yadav, DW-4 Parau and considering the entire evidence of the acquisition of the title over the suit property as well as the evidence with respect to the parties amongst the family members, held that there was no partition of the property between the parties and after elaborate discussion of the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. The first appeal filed by the appellants has also been dismissed upholding the finding recorded by the learned trial Court which is the subject matter in the present second appeal. 12. The consideration and finding recorded by the learned Courts below regarding earlier partition of the property of the family are purely the finding of fact which has been concurrently recorded both the Courts below. 9 13. In the matter of 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 (1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 SC 1906) it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable d 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(1999) 3 SCC 573, 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 f Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board18. 14. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Shiv Dayal and Another, 2019 (8) SCC, 637, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 16 & 17 as under: “16. When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against b any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (See observation made by learned Judge, Vivian Bose, J., as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar para 43.) 17. In our opinion, if any one or more ground, as mentioned above, is c made out in an appropriate case on the basis of the pleading and evidence, such ground will constitute substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.” 15. In view of the evidence available on record, and also in view of the finding recorded by both the Courts below, this Court does not find any much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination. 16. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok