1 2025:CGHC:56204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 21 of 2009 1 - Shanta Meshram (Died) Through Legal Heirs 1.- (A) Sanjay Meshram S/o Niranjan Meshram, Aged About 22 Years R/o 1 - (B) Minor Vijay Meshram, S/o Nirajnan Meshram, Aged About 17 Years Being Minor Through Brother Sanjay Meshram, Aged About 22 Years, S/o Niranjan Meshram, Both R/o Durpa Road Post And Tahsil Korba. ... Appellants versus 1 - Sevakram Masih (Died) Through Legal Heirs 1.- (A) Aanjana Masih W/o Late Sevakram Masih Aged About Major, 1.- (B) Ritesh Masih, S/o Late Sevakram Masih Aged About Major, 1.- (C) Atul Masih, S/o Late Sevakram Masih Aged About Major, 1.- (D) Abhilasha Roy, D/o Late Sevakram Masih Aged About Major, All are R/o Sarvamangla Road, Ward No. 1 District Korba Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Conference Manonigh Mission Korba, Through Manager, Kaviram Lal S/o R.M. Lal, R/o Vikas Nagar, Kusmunda, Quarter No. 298, Tahsil And District Korba 3 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korba. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Ashok Swarnkar, Advocate. For State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 18.11. 202 5 1. The instant First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Korba in Civil Suit No.6-A/2007 whereby the Civil Suit filed by Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.12.09 18:08:33 +0530 2 the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction is decreed in his favour. 2. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land Khasra No.874/1 area 0.10 Acre situated at village Korba, Tehsil & District Korba. It was pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that the suit land was purchased by his father Samaru Masih through registered sale deed dated 09.07.1959 (though the date of sale deed has not been disputed by any of the party, however from the documents Ex.P/7&P/8 it appears that correct date of sale deed is 09.02.1959, therefore it is referred hereinafter as 09.02.1959) from the defendant No.2 and came into possession thereof. After his death, the plaintiff inherited his property and is in possession of the same. The defendant No.2-General Conference Manonigh Mission Korba, was having 14 dismil of land out of which they sold 10 dismil of land to the father of plaintiff and remaining 4 dismil of land was purchased by one Girdiyan Nath. The defendant No.1-Shanta Meshram purchased the said 4 dismil of land from Girdiyan Nath through registered sale deed dated 15.05.1983, however, with collusion of revenue authorities and by fraudulent act, she got mutated her name in the revenue record over 14 dismil of land in place of 4 dismil of land. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that the father of plaintiff got diverted 10 dismil of land on 01.01.1973 which he purchased on 09.02.1959 and constructed a house thereon and started residing. After alienation of 10 dismil of land to the father of plaintiff, the defendant No.2 was having only 4 dismil of land, however, he again sold 9 dismil of land to defendant No.1 and thus the defendant No.2 was not having any right or title to alienate the 3 excess land than what he was having and further Girdiyan Nath was also not having any right or title to alienate more than 4 dismil of land to defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is trying to sale the land of plaintiff saying that it is his land and when the plaintiff verified the revenue record he came to know that the defendant No.1 has got mutated his 10 dismil of land in her own name which gives cause of action to file civil suit. 3. The defendant No.1 contested the claim of plaintiff, filed written statement, denied the plaint averment and pleaded that she purchased 14 dismil of land from Girdiyan Nath and her name has also been mutated over 14 dismil of land. She purchased the said land from Girdiyan Nath through registered sale deed dated 15.05.1983 and came into possession of the same. The plaintiff is in possession of her own land. Mutation of defendant No.1 in the revenue record is over 14 dismil of land which was well within the knowledge of plaintiff from its very beginning and she has not committed any fraud with anyone. The land of plaintiff is in the back side of the land of defendant No.1 and she has no claim over the land of the plaintiff. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : dzekad okn iz’u fu"d"kZ 1 क्या दिनांक 9 जुलाई 1959 को ्ቚतिवाी कं ० 2 जनरल कान्फे स मेनोनाईट दिमशन कोरबा से समारू मसीह ने 200@& रूपये में वा्ቑ" कं ०- 2 सव"मंगला रो्ቑ] कोरबा की खसरा नं0 874@1 में से रकबा 0-10 एकड़ भूदिम पंजीयन बैनामा gkW izekf.kr 4 के माध्यम से dz; दिकया अथवा क्या ्ቚतिवाी कं ० 1 शांा मे्ቦाम ने दिगቑኌ्ቑयननाथ से ख 0 नं 874@1 के कु ल रकबा 0-14 एकड़ भूदिम को पंजीयन दिवकय प्ቔ बैनामा के ्ቛारा दिनांक 15-03-1983 को कय की थी अथवा क्या दिगቑኌ्ቑयननाथ ने ख 0 नं0 874@1 के कु ल रकबा 0-14 एकड़ भूदिम में से के वल 0-04 एकड़ भूदिम ्ቚतिवाी कं 1 शांा मे्ቦाम को बेचा था gkW izekf.kr fdarq 0- 09 ,dM+ dh lhek rd oS/k 0-09 ,dM+ dh Hkfe fodz; dh FkhA 2 क्या दिववादि भूदिम वा्ቑ" कं 0 2 सव"मंगला रो्ቑ कोरबा में ख० नं0 874@1 रकबा 0-10 एकड़ भूदिम पर मकान एवं बाड़ी बनाकर वाी सेवकराम दिनवास अपने पूव"ज समारू मसीह के जीवनकाल से करा आ रहा है gkW ] izekf.kr 3 क्या ्ቚति०क० 1 ने राजस्व दिवभाग को धोखा ेे हुए 0-04 एकड़ भूदिम के स्थान पर ख० पं० 874@1 के पूरे रकबे 0-14 एकड़ की भूदिम पर अपना नाम ज" करा लिलया है ] tks ukekarj.k voS/k gS dsoy 0-09 ,dM+ dh Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ukekarj.k oS?k gSA 'ks"k Hkwfe ds laca/k ess voS/k gSA 4 D;k oknh dk okn csfe;kn gSA ugh 5 D;k oknh us okn dk U;k; 'kqYd de pLik fd;k gS A Ukgh 5. In support of their claim, the plaintiff has examined PW-1 Sevak Masih, PW-2 Chandramani Bai, PW-3 Amolin Bai, PW-4 Anjana Masih, PW-5 Titus Kumar, PW-6 Kristyan and PW-7 M.S. Masih and he relied upon documents Ex.P/1 to P/8 which are copies of revenue records, mutation register and copies of sale deeds. The defendant No.1 examined herself as DW-1, Vatsal Kumar, DW-2 and Satish Masih, 5 DW-3 and relied upon documents Ex.D/1 to D/7 which are sale deeds and revenue documents. 6. After appreciation of evidence produced by the parties the trial court comes into conclusion that the father of plaintiff Samaru Masih had purchased 10 dismil of land from Khasra No.874/1 from defendant No.2-General Conference Manonigh Mission Korba, vide registered sale deed dated 09.02.1959 Ex.P/7. There is no document on record with respect to alienation made by defendant No.2 in favour of Girdiyan Nath and from Khasra Panchshala Ex.D/4 it transpires that in the name of Girdiyan Nath the land of Khasra No.874/1 area 14 dismil was recorded, however, the source of title of Girdiyan Nath is not proved. The source of title of Girdiyan Nath came in sale deed Ex.P/8 which has been proved by PW-7 by which the land of 9 dismil was sold to Girdiyan Nath by the defendant No.2 through registered sale deed dated 09.02.1959 and in the year 1983 when Girdiyan Nath sold the property to defendant No.1, he was having 9 dismil of land and he was competent to alienate only 9 dismil of land, however, he executed the sale deed on 15.05.1983 with respect to 14 dismil of land for which he was not competent. The trial court also found that in the year 1959 when the land was alienated to Samaru and Girdiyan Nath, total land of 19 dismil from Khasra No.874/1 was recorded in the name of defendant No.2 and 10 dismil was sold to Samaru and 9 dismil was sold to Girdiyan Nath and the sale by Girdiyan Nath in favour of defendant No.1 is valid only to the extent of 9 dismil. From the evidence led by the parties, the trial court also comes into conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of his purchased land and defendant 6 No.1 is also in possession of land which she purchased from the date when it was purchased. The defendant No.1 has not claimed possession since the date of its purchase that her land was possessed by the plaintiff and thus the claim of defendant No.1 over 14 dismil of land is suspicious and has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff which is under challenge in the present First Appeal. 7. In the present First Appeal the points for determination would be whether the trial court has erred in law and facts in not considering the documents and revenue entries in favour of defendant No.1 as per her claim? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the defendant No.1 is not challenging the sale deed of plaintiff, however, the plaintiff tried to encroach upon the land of defendant No.1. The sale deed of defendant No.1 was never challenged by the plaintiff and the genuineness of the sale deed cannot be questioned. The sale deed Ex.D/1 is a deed of title by which 14 dismil of land was transferred in favour of defendant No.1 in which she is in possession as the rightful owner of the said property. The plaintiff is questioning the identity of land for which he did not get his land demarcated, and encroaching the land of plaintiff. The trial court has erred in considering the recitals of the sale deed and the title of the vendors which they transferred to the respective purchasers. He would also submit that the trial court has erred in shifting onus upon defendant No.1 to prove that her vendor was having sufficient property for alienation and she could not establish the title of her vendor whereas, Girdiyan Nath was the rightful owner of the property which he acquired from defendant No.2 and he sold it to 7 defendant No.1. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant No.1 supported the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that from the document Ex.P/1 the land of Khasra No.874/1 was recorded as 14 dismil in the year 1954-55, out of which, the defendant No.2 sold 10 dismil of land to the father of plaintiff and it was mutated in his name. In the year 1973 he got the said 10 dismil of land diverted and constructed a house thereon. From the sale deed Ex.P/7, the father of plaintiff had purchased 10 dismil of land from defendant No.2 and from the document Ex.P/8 the defendant No.2 had sold 9 dismil of land to Girdiyan Nath. Both these sale deeds are dated 09.02.1959. Again the said Girdiyan Nath executed another sale deed of 14 dismil of land in favour of defendant No.1 on 15.05.1983. When Girdiyan Nath had purchased only 9 dismil of land from defendant No.2, he could not have sold 14 dismil of land to the defendant No.1 and he executed the sale deed beyond his capacity which itself is suspicious and does not convey any title over the defendant No.1. Since the plaintiff was in possession of his 10 dismil of land since 1959 during the lifetime of his father, the defendant No.1 could not get possession by the said sale deed in the year, 1983 when she claimed that she purchased 14 dismil of land from Girdiyan Nath because Girdiyan Nath himself was not having in possession over 14 dismil of land. After due appreciation of the evidence as well as the document, the trial court has rightly considered the case of the plaintiff and passed decree in his favour which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 8 10. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 11. In the present case, the alienation by Girdiyan Nath is questioned as he purchased 9 dismil of land from defendant No.2 on 09.02.1959 but he sold 14 dismil of land to defendant No.1 through sale deed dated 15.05.1983. 12. The law is well settled in the field that one cannot transfer the title, than what he/she does have. In Umadevi Nambiar Vs. Thamarasseri Roman Catholic Diocese, 2022 (7) SCC 90, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “19.It is a fundamental principle of the law of transfer of property that “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has” (Nemo dat quod non habet). The appellant’s sister did not have the power to sell the property to the vendors of the respondent. Therefore, the vendors of the respondent could not have derived any valid title to the property. If the vendors of the respondent themselves did not have any title, they had nothing to convey to the respondent, except perhaps the litigation.” 13. In P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar, 2024(13)SCC-553, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again held in paragraph 29 as under : “29.It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.” 14. When this court examines the evidence available on record and also examines the consideration of the trial court, it transpires that in the document Ex.P/1 which is the record of right of the year, 1954-55, total 14 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 was recorded in the name of defendant No.2-General Conference Manonigh Mission Korba. On 9 09.02.1959 two sale deeds have been executed by the defendant No.2 i.e. (1) 10 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 in favour of Samaru Masih (father of the plaintiff), and (ii) 9 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 in favour of Girdiyan Nath, through sale deeds Ex.P/7 & P/8 respectively. The defendant No.2 also executed a certificate that he sold 10 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 to Samaru Masih and his name may be recorded in the revenue record. Based on it, the name of the father of plaintiff Samaru Masih was recorded. There is no document on record with respect to acquisition of title over 14 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 by the said Girdiyan Nath. From the sale deed dated 15.05.1983, Ex.D/1 it transpires that Girdiyan Nath had sold 14 dismil of land of Khasra No.874/1 to defendant No.1 which has been recorded in her name in the revenue records. The documents Ex.P/7&P/8 which are sale deeds of respective parties have been proved by PW-7, M.S. Tiwari, who was an employee of the office of Registrar, Bilaspur. He proved that on 09.02.1959, 10 dismil of land was sold to Samaru Masih through sale deed Ex.P/7 and 9 dismil of land was sold to Girdiyan Nath through sale deed Ex.P/8. The execution of these two sale deeds have not been challenged by the defendant No.1. The evidence of plaintiff is that in the year 1973 his father got diverted their land and constructed a house and they are in possession of the same, however, in the year 1983 the defendant No.1 got purchased 14 dismil of land for which the seller Girdiyan Nath was not competent because he had purchased only 9 dismil of land. 15. It is for the defendant No.1 to prove that Girdiyan Nath was having alienable title over 14 dismil of land particularly when the document 10 Ex.P/8 shows that he purchased only 9 dismil of land from defendant No.2 on 09.02.1959. The name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records on the basis of said sale deed dated 15.05.1983, Ex.D/1, however, the fact remains as to how Girdiyan Nath was competent to alienate 14 dismil of land when he purchased only 9 dismil of land from defendant No.2. All the witnesses of plaintiff have proved the possession of the plaintiff over 10 dismil of land. 16. In the cross examination of PW-1, Sevak Ram, the defendant No.1 have given the suggestion that the plaintiff was settled in possession of 10 dismil of land which he purchased. In paragraph 8 of his cross examination he has stated that ;g lgh gS fd esjs firk tks tehu esuksukbZV ppZ ls [kjhns Fks] og 0-10 ,dM+ Fkk] mles esjs firk dk tks dCtk Fkk] mrus gh Hkwfe ij ge yksxksa us vkt Hkh dkfct gSA In paragraph 9, he further states that the defendant No.1 is settled in possession of the land which she has purchased in the year, 1983 and her land was surrounded by boundary wall. In the year, 2004 the defendant No.1 tried to sale his land, therefore, the dispute arose. 17. PW-2 Chandramani Bai, have also been cross examined by defendant No.1 and a suggestion was given to her also that the plaintiff is in possession of his own land which he has purchased. In paragraph 3 of her cross examination she answered the suggestion given by the defendant No.1 that : ;g lgh gS fd oknh ds firk tks tehu [kjhns Fks] vkSj ftrus tehu dk dCtk [kjhnh le; ik;s Fks] vkt Hkh mrus gh tehu ij dkfct gSA Further, she admits in paragraph 4 that &;g lgh gS fd blh izdkj izfroknh dzekad&1 tks tehu [kjhndj dCtk ikbZ gS] ml ij ? 11 ksjk dj nhoky cuokbZ gS vkSj vius mrus tehu ij izfroknh dzekad&1 vkt Hkh dkfct gSA 18. A similar suggestion was also given to PW-3, Amolin Bai in paragraph 3 that the parties are settled in their possession whatsoever they have purchased from the respective sellers. 19. PW-4, Anjana Masih, have also stated in paragraph 18 of her cross examination that : ;g dguk lgh gS fd tcls geus 10 fMlfey [kjhnk Fkk rc ls vius 10 fMlfey tehu ij dkfct gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd 'kkark esJke us esjs mDr 10 fZMlfey tehu dks u rks dCtk fd;k vkSj u gh ml ij fuekZ.k fd;k gSA ;c ckr lgh gS fd orZeku esa Hkh eS iwjs 10 fMlfey tehu ij dkfct gWwA 20. PW-5, Titus Kumar, who was an Ex Secretary of General Conference Manonigh Mission Korba, have stated in his evidence that the plaintiff and Girdiyan Nath had purchased the land of Khasra No.874/1. 21. DW-1, Shanta Meshram, have stated in her cross examination that she had seen the revenue records of the land of Girdiyan Nath. Girdiyan Nath purchased the land from defendant No.2 and Girdiyan Nath had purchased only once from defendant No.2. She also admits that whatever land purchased by Girdiyan Nath, the same land was recorded in the revenue records in his name. In paragraph 17 of her cross examination when the question was put to this witness that whatever property Girdiyan Nath was having, he executed the sale deed for that, then this witness have answered that she did not know as to what was the property hold by Girdiyan Nath, however, she 12 purchased 14 dismil of land from him. In paragraph 19 she also admits that prior to 2004 she and plaintiff Sevak Ram were independently holding their land and were in separate possession of their land. 22. From the evidence of witnesses led by both the parties it transpires that Girdiyan Nath had purchased once the land from the defendant No.2 and with that respect the sale deed Ex.P/8 was filed by the plaintiff by which Girdiyan Nath purchased only 9 dismil of land from Khasra No.874/1 vide sale deed dated 09.02.1959 and plaintiff had purchased 10 dismil of land on 09.02.1959. Both the parties are settled in their possession of their purchased land. The dispute arose in the year 2004 when defendant No.1 tried to encroach and sell out the land of plaintiff to other persons. There is no other documents or evidence produced by the defendant No.1 that Girdiyan Nath validly acquired the land of 14 dismil which he allegedly sold to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 15.05.1983, Ex.D/1. When the title of Girdiyan Nath has not been proved by defendant No.1 over 14 dismil of land, he could not transfer the title of entire 14 dismil of land to the defendant No.1, but she could transfer only 9 dismil of land to defendant No.1 which Girdiyan Nath purchased through registered sale deed dated 09.02.1959. 23. This court vide order dated 02.11.2022 called a demarcation report from Collector, Korba with respect to suit property and in compliance of the same the demarcation report dated 24.11.2022 has been submitted along with affidavit of SDO (Revenue), Korba, dated 23.01.2023, however, considering the fact that the said demarcation report is not a part of the trial court record, it cannot be considered for deciding the 13 case on merits as the merits of the case is based on the title of the party which arises out of sale deeds dated 09.02.1959 Ex.P/7 & P/8 and dated 15.05.1983, Ex.D/1. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts and evidence available on records and also the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi Nambiar (Supra) and P. Kishore Kumar (Supra), I do not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 25. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 26. An appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder