1 2026:CGHC:545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 490 of 2024 1 - Smt. Lalmani Wd/o. Ramchandra Aged About 61 Years R/o. Village - Bhaiyathan, Police Station And Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kamla D/o. Late Ramchandra, W/o. Umesh Kumar Aged About 41 Years R/o. Village - Bhaiyathan, Police Station And Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Harshvardhan S/o. Shri Kaushalendra Nath Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o. Bhaiyathan Road, Surajpur, Police Station, Tehsil And District - Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District - Surajpur (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 06/01/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.01.08 11:05:29 +0530 2 judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024 passed by the learned First District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2019 (Lalmani and Anr. Vs. Harshvardahn and Anr.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge Class-I, Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2008, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs instituted a suit on 08/05/2008 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 650 (old Khasra No. 1142/3), situated at Village Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.), claiming ownership on the basis of sale deeds dated 06/07/1991 executed by late Dhirendranath Sharma, coupled with delivery of possession. It is reflected from the pleadings that an earlier donation deed in favour of respondent No.1 mistakenly included the suit land, which error was subsequently rectified by a Rectification Deed dated 07/06/1990, duly corrected in the revenue records. Respondent No.1, however, denied the plaintiffs’ claim and asserted title and possession over the suit land on the basis of a registered donation deed dated 07/06/1988, disputing the validity of the subsequent sale and rectification deeds, and filed a counter claim for injunction. 3 3. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the counter claim of respondent No.1, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title and possession over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 27/09/2018, the plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs have been heard on the question of admission, and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as also the learned First Appellate Court have been carefully examined. 5. The scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. 6. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate 4 Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 7. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings of fact. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 9. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that 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 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. 10. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the proposed question of law cannot be 5 regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 of the CPC. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein. The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. In my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they does not call for any interference. 12. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar