1 2025:CGHC:56667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 192 of 2016 1 - Narad Ram Sahu S/o Late Budhram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Kurud, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ...............Plaintiffs, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - (Died And Deleted) Smt. Ratiyawan Bai As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 29- 07-2022 And 28-03-2023. 2 - Janakram Sahu S/o Late Mehattar Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post Kurud, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Kantaram Sahu S/o Late Mehattar Sahu, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village And Post Kurud, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mehattar Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Kurud, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Sumitra Bai W/o Pokhan Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jarahi, Post Office Banbaghera, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Beena Bai W/o Suresh Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kureta, Post Office Kureta, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Bisantin Bai W/o Bheemram Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nandini Purani Basti, P.O. Nandini, Tahsil Damdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh .................Defendants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board 20/11//2025 1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.12.12 12:32:36 +0530 2 judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg, District Durg in Civil Appeal No. A/0000185/2013, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2010 has been affirmed. 2. The plaintiff had filed civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration of title and possession of the suit land Khasra No. 211 (new Khasra No. 576) area 1.30 acre situated at village Kurud, Tahsil and District Durg. It is admitted fact in the case that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 7 are step brothers and sisters and the defendant No.1 is their mother. The pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint that he is the son of the defendant No. 1 and one Budhram. When the plaintiff was aged about 3 - 4 years, the defendant No. 1 left her husband Budhram and got married with Mehattar Ram and started residing at village Kurud. She took the plaintiff with her and from the Mehattar Ram defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have born. The defendant No. 1 had obtained about 12 acre of land from her parents, in which her two sisters were also having right and title. She sold the said land and purchased the suit land of Khasra No. 211 area 1.30 acre at village Kurud. At the time when the land of village Kurud was purchased the plaintiff was minor. In the year 1975-76, the father of the plaintiff took him to village Junwani along with his other family members and orally given the land of 1.71½ acre of land for his livelihood. At that time the second wife of Budhram started raising dispute and thrown him out from his house in the year 1983. The defendant No. 1 again took him to her house at village Kurud and he cultivating his land there. In the year 1999, the defendant No. 1 executed an unregistered deed by which she relinquished her right and title over the property, however, in the year 2005 the defendants have ousted him from the property and then he filed the present civil suit. 3 3. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiff and filed their written statement. In the written statement they pleaded that the plaintiff have never resided with them and the suit land is owned by defendant No.1 and she is in possession thereof. She intended to handover the suit land to the plaintiff and since he is the son of Budhram, he has no right or title over her property. The plaintiff was never been in possession of the suit land. No cause of action was arose in favour of the plaintiff and a baseless suit has been filed by him which is liable to be dismissed. 4. Considering the pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned trial Court has framed following issues: izdj.k esa mHk;i{kksa ds vfHkopu ds vk/kkj ij fu- okn iz’u fufeZr fd, ax, gS] ftuds fu"d"kZ muds le{k vafdr gS%& 1- D;k oknh xzke &dq:n iVokjh gYdk ua- 14 ftyk nqxZ fLFkr d`f"k Hkwfe dk iqjkuk [k- ua- 211 u;k [k-ua- 576 jdok 1-30 ,dM dk Lokeh o vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSA 2- D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls okn Hkwfe [k-ua- 211 नया [k-ua- 576 jdok 1-30 ,dM+ dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 3. lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\ 5. To prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, Panchram Yadav PW-2 and has relied upon the document Ex.P/1 which is the will deed dated 24.09.2003, Ex.P/2 affidavit of defendant No.1 Ratiyawan bai, Ex.P/3, copy of revenue documents Ex.P/4, which is the copy of sale deed dated 25.03.2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of one Dr. Shila Sharma. The defendants have not produced any witnesses in their support but they relied upon the document Ex.D/1, which is cancellation of will deed executed on 06.06.2005. 6. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the plaintiff could not produce any document with respect to the acquisition of land from his father late Budhram, earlier there was a dispute between the second wife of his father and their children which was decided in the year 1976. However, no documents of that decision has also been filed by the plaintiff, no document with respect to the fact that the defendant No.1 had purchased the land at 4 Kurud after alienating their land obtained from her parents. The claim of the plaintiff is based on the will deed executed on 24.09.2003 Ex.P/1, however, the said will deed dated 24.09.2003 was cancelled vide revocation of will dated 06.06.2005. Further the executor of the said will Ratiyawan Bai was still alive and the will cannot be enforced during her life time and the defendant No.1 Ratiyawan bai had sold the suit land to Dr. Shila Sharma through registered sale deed dated 25.03.2010 and, thus the plaintiff misrebly failed to prove his case and the suit has been dismissed. 7. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned first appellate Court challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2015 which is under challenge in the present second appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the defendant have not produced any evidence and has not examined themselves to prove their defence which amounts to admission of the contents of the plaint and the decree should have been passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. It is admitted fact in the case that the plaintiff is the son of the defendant No.1 from Budhram side, therefore, he is entitled for the property of his mother. However, the claim of the plaintiff over the property of his mother has been negated despite admitted fact that he is son of the defendant No.1. He would also submits that the affidavits executed by Ratiyawan Bai Ex.P/2 should have been considered as complete estoppel against her to say anything against the said fact, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. There are substantial question of law involved in the appeal for its determination. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 10. The claim of the plaintiff is based on document of Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 which are will dated 24.09.2003 and affidavit executed by defendant No.1. He is 5 claiming that the property obtained by defendant No.1 from her parents was sold by her and from that consideration she had purchased the land at village Kurud, over which the plaintiff has right and title, being the son of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that the suit property situated at village Kurud was purchased by defendant No.1 from the consideration obtained by her from the property of her parents. Even otherwise, the plaintiff is son of defendant No.1 late Budhram and he cannot claim the property of Mehattar Ram and defendant No.1. When the plaintiff could not establish the fact that the suit land situated at village Kurud is purchased by defendant No.1 from the consideration obtained from her parents side. It cannot presumed that it was the property hold by defendant No.1 from her parents side. Further the will deed dated 24.09.2003 was cancelled by another deed of cancellation of will which was executed on 06.06.2005. Particularly, when the defendant No.1 was alive, the plaintiff cannot claimed the property during life time of the executor of the will. Likewise the affidavit with respect to the relinquishment of the title of the defendant No.1 is not admissible as title cannot be passed or transferred by an unregistered deed of relinquishment. The finding recorded by both the learned Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the finding of fact about acquisition of title of the plaintiff. The finding of fact concurrently recorded by the learned Courts below as well as first appellate Court. 11. 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. 6 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 Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board18. 12. 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.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned cases, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court did not committed any mistake in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court as well as learned first appellate Court. There is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the present appeal for its determination. 14. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed without noticing to the other parties. 15. The parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok