1 2025:CGHC:48137 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 336 of 2002  Nandu, S/o Ram Charan Kalar aged about 46 years, Occupation – agriculturist, R/o. Village – Belgaon, Post : Jatkanhar, Tahsil – Dongargarh, Dist. – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Dahanuk, S/o Ram Charan Kalar, Aged about 50 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Village – Belgaon, Post Jatkanhar, Dist : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Rajnandgaon. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Defendant No. 1 : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate Plaintiff Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 09.2025 1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law. 2. The appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal against judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 22A/1996 dated 24.11.2001, whereby first appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant was dismissed and judgment passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed. 3. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brothers. Total 8.79 acre of land was recorded in the name of their father. There was partition between plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and their father on 24.01.1982. A sale-deed pertaining to 2.80 acre of land was SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.22 16:27:22 +0530 2 executed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 in favour of one Ramgopal on 16.04.1983. After death of Ram Charan, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 inherited the property. Unregistered partition-deed was reduced into writing on 05.09.1988 and the remaining property was equally divided between two brothers. Prior to 05.09.1988, an application was moved by the defendant No. 1 to mutate his name against entire suit property and in that revenue case notice was issued to the plaintiff, and thereafter, Civil Suit was filed. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pertaining to 4.39 acre of land which he got in partition. 4. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement and pleaded that the sale-deed was executed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to repay the bank loan. It is also pleaded that an agreement was entered into between the parties to divide the remaining property equally between them on 05.09.1988 and it was duly signed by the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that earlier there was partition between plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and their father on 24.01.1982 and decision was taken to equally divide the suit property between them and after death of their father, a new partition-deed was executed on 05.09.1988. 5. The learned Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and the learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. First Appeal was preferred by the defendant No. 1 and it was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.11.2001. 6. Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate appearing for the appellant/defendant No. 1 would submit that in the year 1982, the suit property was joint property of Ramcharan, plaintiff and defendant No. 1. She would further submit that on 24.01.1982, the property was equally partitioned between them, and thereafter, sale-deed was executed on 16.04.1983 in favour of Ramgopal 3 with the consent of other co owners to repay the bank loan. She would further submit that after death of Ram Charan, decision was taken by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to divide the remaining property equally and accordingly revenue proceedings were initiated. She would also submit that the plaintiff on account of greed, filed Civil Suit claiming therein right over 4.39 acre of land, though the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have right to get ½ – ½ share of remaining 5.99 acre of land. It is argued that 2.80 acre of land has been sold to Ramgopal by plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and the fact is evident from a copy of sale deed, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim right over 4.39 acre of land, when he was party to the sale deed. She would contend that the learned Courts below committed an error of law while deciding the issues against the defendant No. 1. 7. Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 would submit that 2.80 acre of land was sold by the defendant No. 1 alone and this fact has been admitted by the purchaser/Ramgopal in his evidence. He would further submit that this witness categorically stated that the consideration was handed over to the defendant No. 1. Mr. Chouhan would also submit that the defendant No. 1 failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish that any joint loan was taken from any bank and loan amount was repaid from said sale consideration. He would contend that there is concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. The learned trial Court held that the partition dated 24.01.1982 was canceled and decision was taken to divide the suit property equally between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is also held that the defendant 4 No. 1 made an attempt to mutate the entire property in his name. The learned Trial Court held that consideration of 2.80 acre of land was received by the defendant No. 1 alone. It was further held that the partition proceeding of revenue Case No. 15A/27 year 87-88 were illegal and the defendant No. 1 is entitled to get 1.60 acre of land in partition. The learned appellate Court has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Courts below have recorded findings that 2.80 acre of land was sold by defendant No. 1 to one Ramgopal. It is also held that defendant No. 1 failed to produce any document to demonstrate that there was any bank loan in the name of father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Further, Ramgopal/purchaser of 2.80 acre has admitted the fact that 2.80 acre land was sold by defendant No. 1 alone and consideration amount was received by him. The learned Courts below also recorded finding that the defendant No. 1 made attempt to enter his name in the revenue record against entire suit property in clandestine manner. 10. It is true that 2.80 land was sold by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 through registered sale-deed dated 16.04.1983, but the said sale deed was executed after first partition dated 24.1.1982, meaning thereby, the parties were in possession of their respective share by virtue of partition deed and share of appellant/ defendant no. 1 was 2.91 acre. The sale deed was signed by original plaintiff also as revenue records were not rectified according to partition deed, therefore contention made by Ms. Siddique can not be accepted. 11. Further the learned Courts below have recorded concurrent finding on each and every issue. 12. Considering the above-discussed facts, in my opinion no substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal, consequently, this 5 appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, at admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant