1 2026:CGHC:8258 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 241 of 2024 Lakhandas Manikpuri S/o Laldas Manikpuri Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Khajurinvagaon, Bandhiyapara, Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 16.02.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 12/12/2023 passed by the learned Tenth Additional District Judge, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.06-A/2022 (Lakhandas Vs. State of C.G.) arising out of the judgment dated 07/12/2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.30A/2018 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.02.17 16:32:47 +0530 2 (Lakhandas Vs. State of C.G.). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs preferred a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that the land situated at Village Khajuri Nawagaon, P.H. No. 48, Revenue Circle Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), bearing Khasra Nos. 816, 817, 819, 818, having areas 0.295, 0.802, and 0.567 hectares (total 1.26 acres) known as Talab Devband, Thanwarin Talabpar and Paitu, and Khasra No. 859 area 5.67 acres known as Talab Badhiya Thanwarin, was recorded in the revenue records and record of rights in the name of the plaintiff’s maternal grandmother, Thanwarin Bai, as owner and person in possession after the death of the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather, Heera Das. In the Khasra Bandobast records, she was recorded as occupier/repairer and owner of the pond, over which the plaintiff is in possession. On the suit land, the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather Heera Das had excavated the Paitu pond for irrigation of his other lands and for personal use. As per the record, it was recorded in the name of Thanwarin Bai as holder of rights and person in possession. Thereafter, the plaintiff has been in possession for the last 40–50 years. Thus, the said pond and Talabpar Paitu are ancestral properties under the rights and possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Lakhandas Manikpuri, being the grandson of Thanwarin Bai, wife of Heera Das, through 3 her daughter Kapoor Bai, after the death of Thanwarin Bai and Kapoor Bai, remained in peaceful possession as legal heir and has been using and enjoying the property by carrying out irrigation and producing aquatic produce. In the year 2015, the plaintiff came to know that the above lands had been recorded in the revenue records in the name of the Government. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an application for mutation on account of inheritance before the Court of the Additional Tehsildar, Sakri, which was registered as Revenue Case No. 21-A-6/2014-15 and was dismissed by order dated 29.12.2015. Against the said order, the plaintiff preferred a revenue appeal before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota, registered as Revenue Appeal No. 77-A-6/2016-2017, which was also dismissed by order dated 23.08.2017. 3. In the said civil suit, the defendant/State remained ex parte, and no written statement was filed on its behalf. 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the evidence and material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that although the plaintiff produced Exhibit P/11 (death certificate) and Exhibits P/16, P/17, and P/18 (heirship certificates) in the name of Lakhandas Manikpuri to establish his legal heirship through Thanwarin Bai and Kapoor Bai, the suit land is recorded as Government land in the revenue records and, therefore, the 4 essential legal ingredients required to prove lawful title and ownership have neither been established nor substantiated. The Court further held that even though the plaintiff’s witnesses, namely PW-02 Ramesh Kumar, PW-03 Vikram Das, PW-04 Arjun Vande, and PW-05 Manharan Lal, supported the plaintiff’s case by way of affidavit evidence, such oral testimony cannot override or displace the documentary evidence contained in the official revenue records, and in view of the categorical entry of the suit land as Government land, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption attached to such records, resulting in dismissal of the suit. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal before the learned appellate Court who by order impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that both the Courts failed to consider that the revenue record B1 "kisht band khatauni" of year 1954-55 of Maternal Grandmother of the plaintiff which was marked as (Exhibit P-9) clearly provides that the Khasra No.816, 817, 818 and 819 which describes that the said land is under the water were registered in the name of the Maternal Grandmother of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Learned counsel submits that the respondent in the entire proceeding remained 5 ex-parte. Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts failed to consider that a bare perusal of the Nistar Patrak of the disputed land, shows that the owner or occupier of the said land is Maternal Grandmother of the plaintiff and further the said occupation is as per the Section 5 (e) of the CG Abolition of Proprietary Act 1950 which provides that tanks situate at occupied land shall continue to belong to outgoing Proprietor. Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts overlooked that Section 251 of the C.G.L.R.C. 1959 Code applies only to tanks on unoccupied land, not those on occupied land. Vesting in the State occurs only for tanks on unoccupied land, and even then, only after the Collector, following an enquiry, is satisfied that the tank meets the statutory conditions and that interested parties have been duly notified and heard. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 8. In the present case, the plaintiff has not been able to prove any legal right, title, or interest over the suit property. The documents filed by him, namely Exhibit P/11 (death certificate) and Exhibits P/16, P/17, and P/18 (heirship certificates), only show that he is the legal heir of Thanwarin Bai and Kapoor Bai. However, these documents do not prove that he is the owner of the suit land or that he has legally acquired title over it. The revenue records clearly show that the suit land is recorded as Government land. 6 Such official records are presumed to be correct unless strong and reliable documentary evidence is produced to prove otherwise. The plaintiff has not filed any such document to challenge or disprove these entries. The statements given by PW-02 Ramesh Kumar, PW-03 Vikram Das, PW-04 Arjun Vande, and PW-05 Manharan Lal through affidavits are only oral evidence and cannot override the official revenue records. 9. Even otherwise, 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. 10. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellants/plaintiff failed to establish its 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. 11. 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 7 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be 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 appellant 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 appellant herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned First appellate 8 Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep