2025:CGHC:56098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 86 of 2015 Khorbahra Sahu S/o Chherkuram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Vill. Raveli, Post Loharsi, Tah. Rajim Civil Dist. Raipur Revenue Dist. Gariyaband C.G ... Appellant/plaintiff versus 1 - Swaroop Halba S/o Motilal Halba R/o Vill. Raveli Post Loharsi Tahsil Rajim, Civil Dist. Raipur, Revenue Dist. Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Gariyaband, Civil Distt. Raipur, Revenue Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents /Defendants (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Amit Kumar Saha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, PL For Respondent-2 : Shri Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 18.11.2025 1. Present is the 2nd appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District-Gariyaband, CG in Civil Appeal- 21A of 2012 (Annexure A1), whereby, the First appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Rajim in Civil Suit-14A of 2011 has been affirmed. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.17 16:51:51 +0530 Sa 86 of 2015 2 2. For the sake of convenience, status of the parties, as shown in the plaint, is being taken in this appeal. 3. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for declaring the sale deed dated 12.06.1995, executed in favour of defendant-1 be declared as null and void, and also for permanent injunction over the land Khasra No.359 (new No.519), with the pleading that the plaintiff, and her mother Sukwaro Bai are title and possession holders of the land Khasra No.292/1 area 0.09 hectare, and Khasra No.359 (new No.519), situated at village Raveli, Tahsil- Rajim, District-Gariyaband. After settlement, now number of the aforesaid land was allotted as 416 and 519, area 0.09 and 0.454 hectare respectively. 4. Plaintiff, and his mother sold the land of Khasra No.292/1, area 0.09 hectare (new number 416) to the defendant-1 for total consideration of Rs.16,000/-. However, by taking advantage of their illiteracy, defendant -1 got the sale deed executed with respect to the land of Khasra No.359 (new number 519). The possession was handed over to defendant-1 with respect to Khasra No.292/1 (new 416), and the plaintiff is still in possession of the land of Khasra No.359, which is being cultivated by them regularly. However, in the month of June, 2011, when defendant-1 started cultivating the suit land, plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendant. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the sale deed dated 12.06.1995 was fraudulently got executed by defendant-1 by changing its khasra number, which was not sold by the plaintiff. After nine years of its purchase, defendant-1 has made an application before the Tahsildar, Rajim for mutation of his name, in which, plaintiff raised objection, and when the objection has been dismissed by the Tahsildar, as well as by the SDO (Revenue), plaintiff filed suit against defendant-1. Sa 86 of 2015 3 5. Defendant-1 contested the claim of the plaintiff, and filed his written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He pleaded in his written statement that he purchased land of Khasra No.292/1, rakba 0.09 hectare (new number 416) for total consideration of Rs.16,000/-, which was the proper consideration as per the market rate prevailing at that time. He was unknown about its four corners at the time of purchase. On 12.06.1995, plaintiff has obtained the revenue documents from the concerned Patwari, and executed the sale deed of the land of Khasra No.359, area 454 hectare, and got the sale deed registered. The sale of said land was well withing the knowledge of the plaintiff, from that day itself, however, plaintiff did not do anything to get the said sale deed corrected. There was no fraudulent act committed by defendant-1, and after registration of the sale deed, title of the plaintiff over the said land was extinguished. Concerned Patwari has got mutated his name on 25.06.2002 on the basis of said sale deed, however, the entries in the revenue record have been recorded after the order passed by the Tahsildar, Rajim on 30.08.2007. Defendant-1 is cultivating the suit land every year, and false complaint has been by the plaintiff, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. On hearing the submissions/pleadings made by learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court has made the following issues: Okkniz’u fu"d"kZ 1& D;k oknh }kjk izfroknh dz01 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr iathd`r fodz; i= fnukad 12@6@1995 diViw.kZ gksus ds dkj.k ‘’kwU;gSA izekf.kr ugh 2& D;k izfroknh dz0 1 }kjk oknh dsk okn Hkwfe [kljk uacj 359 u;k [kljk uacj 519 jdck 0-41 gsDVs;j Hkwfe ij csn[ky djus dh /kedh nh tk jgh gSA izekf.kr ugh Sa 86 of 2015 4 3& ;fn gkW] rks D;k oknh izfroknh dz0 ds fo:) oknHkwfe ds laca/k es ቝኋयी fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA izekf.kr ugh 4& D;k oknh dk nkok ifjlhek vof/k ls ckgj gSA izekf.kr ugh 5&lgk;rk ,oa O;;A कं डिकं 21 ds vuqlkj 7. In support of his claim, plaintiff examined himself as PW1, Devnath Sahu-PW2, Salik Halba-PW3, Paitram-PW4, and relied upon the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, which are the revenue documents, order passed by the revenue authority, and copy of the sale deed. Defendant-1 examined himself as DW1, Latel-DW2, and relied upon the documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which are the order dated 30.08.2007, passed by the Tahsildar, Rajim, and the complaint made to the Police respectively. 8. After appreciation of evidence available on record, learned trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit land, and also failed to prove any fraud in execution of sale deed dated 12.06.2009, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which has been affirmed by the learned 1st Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land, which has also been admitted by the defendant-1. Plaintiff is illiterate person, and by taking advantage of his being illiterate, defendant-1 has got mentioned Khasra No.359 in place of Khasra No.292/1, in the said sale deed, Ex.P10. Four corners over which the plaintiff presently in possession have also not been disputed by defendant-1. It is only dispute that Khasra number in the sale deed has been mentioned incorrectly. Defendant-1 got his name mutated in the revenue records in the year 2000 itself, and the Sa 86 of 2015 5 plaintiff challenged the revenue proceedings also, and ultimately, filed the civil suit. The findings recorded in the learned Courts below are perverse, and without proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Therefore, there is substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination, and for setting aside the judgment and decree. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. The claim of the plaintiff is that though the sale deed has been executed on 12.06.1995 with respect to Khasra No.292/1, however, in the sale deed, defendant-1 has got mentioned the sale of Khasra No.359, and the plaintiff is still in possession of the said land. The plaintiff has stated in his evidence that by taking advantage of his illiteracy, defendant-1 has got the said Khasra number entered in the sale deed, Ex.P10. From perusal of the document Ex.P10, it transpires that plaintiff has made his signature on the sale deed, and it is also mentioned in it that possession of said Khasra number was handed over to its purchaser on the date of sale deed. It is mentioned that the disputed land is barren land. 12. PW1- the plaintiff has admitted in this evidence that on the date of execution of sale deed, he came to the office of sub-Registrar, for execution, and made his signature on each leaf of the sale deed, and he handed over its possession to defendant-1, which he sold. He further admitted that at the time of registration of sale deed, the scribe has framed about the details of the land, and its four corners were mentioned as disclosed by him. He further admitted that he has not made any complaint before the sub-Registrar, or any other Sa 86 of 2015 6 Officer. He also admitted that on the date of execution of sale deed, i.e. on 12.06.1995, defendant-1 not appeared at the Office of the sub-Registrar. From overall evidence available on record, the trial court has considered that the plaintiff is literate person, and he signed the sale deed after understanding the nature of document. However, he failed to prove that defendant-1 has got entered the Khasra No.359, instead of Khasra No.292/1 fraudulently, in the sale deed. When the plaintiff himself has admitted that on the date of registration of the sale deed, defendant-1 had not come to the sub-Registrar’s office, no fraudulent act can be admitted on his part, that he got recorded a different Khasra number, than the other one, which has been sold actually, to defendant-1. 13. Learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of PW3- Salik Halba, who has taken the revenue document, and gave it to the plaintiff on the basis of which, the sale deed was prepared. Further, despite knowing the fact that wrong khasra number has been entered in the said sale deed, if any, as per the claim of the plaintiff, and the evidence produced by him; he came to know about the fact in the year 2004 itself, he filed the suit in the year 2011, saying that wrong khasra number has been entered in the said sale deed. The plaintiff could not establish the fraud in execution of sale deed dated 12.06.1995, which has been concurrently held by both the Courts below. 14. In the matter of Vishwanath Agrawal, s/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-36 and 37 thus: “36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (Dead) by LRs and others (1997) 3 SCC 546, it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected Sa 86 of 2015 7 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 (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 Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board & Ors (2007) 14 SCC 138.” 15. In case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs Shiv Dayal and another (2019) 8 SCC 637, Honble Supreme Court has held that: “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 de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against 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 Sa 86 of 2015 8 Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43). 17. In our opinion, if any one or more ground, as mentioned above, is 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.” 16. In view of the above, and the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any perversity, or illegality in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, as well as the First appellate Court, which has been concurrently held by the Courts below. 17. Accordingly, no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for determination. Hence, present appeal is dismissed without noticing the other side. 18. Parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma