1 2026:CGHC:12047 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 294 of 2016 1(A) Surendra Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Sukhdev Pathak, Aged About 50 Years R/o Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2(A) Rajkumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Sukhdev Pathak, Aged About 45 Years R/o Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3(A) Santosh Kumar Pathak S/o Late Shri Sukhdev Pathak, Aged About 35 Years R/o Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 4(A) Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Shri Sukhdev Pathak, Aged About 35 Years R/o Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 5(A) Uttara D/o Late Shri Sukhdev Pathak, Aged About 47 Years R/o Mungeli, Thana And Tahsil Mungeli, Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiffs, ... Appellants versus 1 - Ravindra Dutt S/o Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 36 Years R/o Jawaharward, Padavpara, Mungeli, Thana, Tahsil And Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Parath Kulmitra S/o Latelram Kurmi, Aged About 36 Years R/o Jawaharward, Padavpara, Mungeli, Thana, Tahsil And Revenue Distt.- Mungeli, Civil Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................Defendants, --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.03.16 17:25:35 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 13.03.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 27/01/2016 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.54A/2015 (Smt. Mithilesh wd/o Sukhdev Pathak(died) & Ors Vs Ravindra Dutt & Anr) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30/06/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, C.G. in Civil Suit No.25A/2003 (Sukhdev Vs. Ravindra Dutt & Anr) . 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 for permanent injunction with respect to the land situated at Gram Mungeli, P.H. No. 6, Tehsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur. as Khasra No. 678/2, measuring 0.23 acres, is marked in red in the map annexed with the plaint, pleading inter alia that the disputed land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff, and it is recorded in the revenue records in the names of the plaintiff and his co-sharers. During the partition among the co-sharers, the land was allotted to the plaintiff, and he is in possession of the land. To the east of the disputed land, there is a drain, and the defendants are attempting to illegally occupy approximately 0.05 acres of the plaintiff’s land by constructing a wall and carrying out permanent construction 3 work. For this purpose, the defendants have started collecting sand, bricks, cement, etc., and have begun excavation work on the disputed land. When the plaintiff objected, the defendants created a dispute, which was reported by the plaintiff at the Mungeli police station and information was provided to the municipal corporation. However, the defendants are forcibly constructing on the land and attempting to evict the plaintiff from the disputed property. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent any construction or obstruction on the disputed land. 3. The defendants in their written statement, denied all the plaint averments. They submitted that the plaintiff has no possession over any land. The actual facts are that the grandfather of Defendant Ravindra Datt, named Purnanand, purchased a piece of land measuring 10,007 square feet from Fekuram Yadav, son of Bhurva Yadav, and Smt. Dhaniya Bai, wife of Bhurva Yadav, through a registered sale deed dated 12/05/72 for Khasra No. 678 and took possession of the land. A house was constructed on a part of this land, while the remaining portion was used as an open courtyard. Earlier, Fekuram Yadav had purchased this land and house from Phuleshwari Bai, wife of Katik Mehtaar, on 21/05/66 through a registered sale deed. Phuleshwari Bai had been in possession of this land since before 1960, and a house was constructed on it. The long-standing possession of Phuleshwari Bai was acknowledged by the plaintiff and his co- 4 sharers, including his brother Bhola Prasad, Vyasanarayan, and mother Bhuri Bai, who, on 05/05/72, signed an acknowledgment letter accepting that the land acquired by Defendant’s grandfather from Fekuram Yadav had been under the possession of Phuleshwari Bai, wife of Katik Mehtaar, for a long period. A plot of land measuring 159 x 25 ft. from Khasra No. 678/1 was sold by the defendant, his mother, and his brother to Defendant 2, Parthalal, son of Latelram Kulmitra, on 26/04/04. The land was handed over to him for possession, and the name of the purchaser (Kreta) has been recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiff or any of his co-sharers have no ownership or rights over this land, nor do they have any possession of it. 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that the evidence produced in the suit clearly indicates that the plaintiff has acknowledged that he does not have direct possession of the disputed land. The plaintiff has failed to prove through his evidence that the defendants are creating any obstruction on the land under his possession. Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to seek a permanent injunction in this matter. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, the LRs of plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal before the learned Appellate Court who by the judgment and decree impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by 5 maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellants/LRs of plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court failed to carefully examine the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence adduced in the matter. He submits that the findings of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove its ownership is contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that the learned court below failed to consider that the land in question is ancestral property of the appellant, and no individual has purchased any share of it through a registered sale deed and it was allocated to Sukhdeo as part of a family partition. Learned counsel further submits that sufficient evidence has been adduced to establish ownership of the property, including proof of the house ownership and revenue records listing the appellant’s name. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the material available on record. 8. In the present case, original plaintiff Sukhdev (PW-2) has stated in examination-in-chief that the disputed land, Khasra No. 678/1, measuring 0.23 acres, is located in Mungeli, and he holds ownership and possession of it, as reflected in the revenue records in his and his co-sharers' names. He acquired the land through a family partition with his co-sharers, and he is currently 6 in possession of it. However, the plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that he does not currently have possession of the disputed land and has also acknowledged that a permanent structure with a roof (lentor) has been constructed on the land by Parath(defendant No.2). Furthermore, in his cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that a portion of the land in Khasra No. 678 was sold by his brothers, and that the individuals who purchased the land from his brothers are now in possession of it. Thus, the plaintiff has implicitly acknowledged that he does not have possession over the disputed land. 9. While, defendant-Ravindra Datt testified that the disputed land was originally purchased by his grandfather, Purnanand, in 1972, from Fekuram Yadav, and it was continuously in the possession of Purnanand since then. The plaintiff and his family had acknowledged Purnanand’s ownership and possession through a consent letter. The defendants presented various documents to support their claim, including sale deeds and revenue records, which were not contradicted during cross-examination. These documents corroborate the defendants' claims regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property. 10. The plaintiff's own admission, coupled with the documents and evidence presented by the defendants, leads the Court to conclude that the plaintiff does not currently possess the disputed land. On the other hand, the defendants have provided adequate 7 proof of ownership and continuous possession of the land through Purnanand, which is supported by documentary evidence. 11. 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. 12. 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/plaintiffs 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 8 15. 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. 16. 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 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 Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 17. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep