1 2026:CGHC:2404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 477 of 2016 1. Nanhu Rathore S/o Shri Ratiram Rathore, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Amrit Lal Rathore S/o Ratiram Rathore, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Dindayal Rathore S/o Ratiram Rathore, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Ratiram Rathore S/o Late Pokhit, Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus Vishnu Prasad Rathore S/o Late Suklal Rathore, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Taraigaon, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh . ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Anushka Tripathi on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.16 10:26:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 15.01.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 24.06.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 36-A/2014 (Nanhu Rathore & Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Rathore) affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 38-A/2005 ( Vishnu Prasad Rathore Vs. RatiRam Rathore and Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent herein filed for permanent injunction. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 3. The pleadings in suit of the plaintiff, in brief, are that the plaintiff belongs to a joint family settled in village Taraigaon after reclaiming forest land, constructing a residential house, and purchasing agricultural lands. Upon partition, the suit house, adjoining lands, and reclaimed land fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father, late Shuklal, with whom the plaintiff continued to reside jointly. Defendant No. 1, by fraudulent means and in collusion with 3 revenue officials, got the entire reclaimed land i.e. 3.50 acre recorded in his own name, despite the plaintiff being in settled possession over 0.75 acre comprising his house, courtyard, well, and agricultural land. Though the defendant initially assured correction of revenue entries after disposal of a pending dispute, he subsequently got the land recorded in the names of his sons. Even after the dispute was decided in favour of the plaintiff’s side, the defendant avoided correction, threatened the plaintiff, damaged plantation, obstructed access to the well, and extended threats of arson. As no police action followed despite a complaint, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit seeking protection of his lawful possession by way of permanent injunction. 4. The defendants filed their written statement and contend that the suit land bearing admeasuring 3.50 acres has been recorded in the revenue records in the names of defendants No. 2 to 4 as Bhoomiswamis and they are in possession since 1975. Neither, the plaintiff nor his father ever had any right, title, or possession over the suit land, and therefore no question of partition arises. The defendants assert long, continuous possession for nearly thirty years and rely upon a prior decree of permanent injunction passed in their favour in Civil Suit No. 658/2000 against Bisahin Bai, which the plaintiff never challenged despite having full knowledge. It is pleaded that without seeking declaration of title, the present suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable, and that the plaintiff has 4 suppressed material facts and initiated the litigation on the basis of false and fabricated claims to unlawfully dispossess the defendants, compelling them to file a separate counter-claim. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed as many as 3 issues and given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and after a full fledged trial rendered a decision suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff is currently in possession of the disputed land and he is entitled for a permanent injunction. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant/ appellant has preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 7. From the material available on record, it is apparent that, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved his possession over the land in dispute and, accordingly, was entitled to the grant of permanent injunction. The said finding has subsequently been affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well. 8. As far as the contention learned of counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff failed to establish possession and, therefore, the suit 5 for permanent injunction itself was not maintainable, the said contention of appellant counsel is based purely on fact and no substantial question of law is made out. 9. 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 recorded concurrent findings, on the basis of evidence available on record. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the concurrent 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 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 6 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 judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned First appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti