1 2026:CGHC:8403 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 321 of 2024 M.A. Fahim S/o Late M.A. Aleem, Aged About 62 Years R/o Salhewarapara, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ----(Plaintiff) ... Appellant versus 1 - Union of India (Wrongly Mentioned As State Of Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Judgment And Decree Dated 27-03-2024) Through The Railway General Manager (General Manager), Eastern Railway Department, Garden-Reach, Kolkata, West Bengal. ---- (Defendants) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ----(Defendants) 3 - The Station Master, (Wrongly Mentioned As Station Officer In The Impugned Judgement And Decree Dated 27-03-2024) Railway Department, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ---- (Defendants) ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.S. Patel with Mr. M.A. Rahim, Advocates. For Respondent/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G.I. with Ms. Jyoti Singh, C.G.C. For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 17.02.2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.02.19 10:40:24 +0530 2 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 27/03/2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. District Dhamtari, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.1/2018 (M.A. Fahim Vs. C.G. & Ors) arising out of the judgment dated 15/12/2017 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari, C.G. in Civil Suit No.169A/13 (M.A. Fahim Vs. Union of India & Ors). 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 of title and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff owns a total of 0.73 decimals of land across several plots: plot no. 254 (0.35 decimals), 254/4 (0.10 decimals), 232/1 (0.15 decimals), and 232 (0.13 decimals), marked as A,B,C,D. Part of plot 254 was used for constructing the Sinhawa road, recorded as plot 254/2. Although the road is 0.40 decimals, 254/2 is incorrectly recorded as 0.85 decimals, including 0.45 decimals of the plaintiff’s land, which is separate from the road. Despite applications for correction, the records incorrectly classify the plaintiff’s land as road, creating disputes. The land records, including the rin pustika issued in the year 1976 under the name of the father of plaintiff (plot 254/4), support ownership, but no updates have been made. Other plots (254/3, 233, 234/3) sold by the plaintiff’s father are often misrepresented to confuse matters, while plots 232, 254, 254/4 were never sold. Due to these record discrepancies, the 3 plaintiff faces repeated interference, with others claiming the land as railway, government, or Naujul land. Over the years, multiple civil and revenue cases were filed by the plaintiff and their father to assert ownership, some resulting in favorable court decrees. Despite this, illegal occupation and misrepresentation continue. Road construction has further split and misrecorded plots, creating confusion and hindering the plaintiff’s use of their property. Tenants often falsely claim ownership, and some areas near the railway face ongoing encroachment. The plaintiff concerns that ongoing boundary demarcation and enforcement actions by railway and revenue authorities may result in the forcible removal of their property, including their son’s shop, under the pretext of clearing encroachments. The plaintiff asserts ancestral ownership of over 98 years and requests correction of official records, recognition of ownership, and protection against interference, demolition, or illegal record alteration. 3. In the said Civil Suit, the defendants No.1 to 3 have, in their written statements, rejected all the plaint averments made by the plaintiff. 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 Trial Court observed that Respondent No. 2-Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Patwari of Halka No. 33, Tehsil Office, Dhamtari, stated in his deposition that the area in 4 question falls within the jurisdiction of Dhamtari Railway Station. He deposed that land was previously recorded in the name of M.A. Fahim; however, the same has already been sold, and at present no land stands recorded in the name of M.A. Fahim. His statements were corroborated by the documents produced by the plaintiff himself. Exhibit P-16, being the demarcation report, reveals that as per the Patwari records, Khasra Nos. 232, 233, 234, and 254 were divided into 21 plots, none of which are recorded in the name of the plaintiff, M.A. Fahim. It was further noted that four to five of these plots are recorded as converted land. The Trial Court further held that the disputed land was demarcated by a duly constituted committee in the presence of the landowner. The plaintiff, M.A. Fahim, had raised objections to the demarcation proceedings; however, the same were rejected by the Tehsildar, Dhamtari. As per Annexure A to the demarcation report, at Serial No. 44, Abdul Fahim, son of M.A. Aleem, is shown as an occupant of railway property measuring 0.002 hectares. During the demarcation proceedings dated 25.02.2016, Abdul Fahim’s son, Abdul Rahim, appeared in person and submitted documents on his behalf. Annexure E appended to the demarcation report lists 22 landowners, but the name of the plaintiff, M.A. Fahim, does not find mention therein. The Court further observed that the present suit has been filed primarily in respect of the disputed land comprising Khasra No. 254 (portion measuring 0.35 decimal), Khasra No. 254/4 (area 0.10 decimal), Khasra No. 5 232/1 (area 0.15 decimal), and Khasra No. 232 (area 0.13 decimal), totaling 0.73 decimal of land, shown in red ink as A, B, C, and D in the annexed map, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. However, the plaintiff has failed to produce any revenue record establishing his ownership over the aforesaid disputed land. On the contrary, the revenue records reflect the name of the plaintiff’s father, Muhammad Abdul Aleem, son of M.A. Kareem (since deceased), as the recorded landowner. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence demonstrating transfer of title or mutation of the property in his own name. In view of the aforesaid findings and the absence of any documentary proof of ownership in favour of the plaintiff, the Trial Court dismissed 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. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court failed to carefully examine the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence adduced in the matter, including the testimony of the witnesses produced on behalf of the Railways and the State. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court did not consider the fact that the disputed 6 property was originally purchased between the years 1914 and 1918, and several registered sale deeds have been executed in respect of the said property. None of these sale deeds have ever been challenged. In such circumstances, the very execution of sale deeds presupposes ownership of the appellant and his predecessors-in-title. (b) Learned counsel further submits that the suit was filed on the pretext that the property belongs to father and grandfather of the plaintiff though his name is not mentioned in any revenue record nor source of title shown, but still the plaintiff is entitled for title. He would submit that the learned Trial Court failed to consider whether the disputed property in fact belongs to the Railways or not. Neither the Railways nor the State Government produced any documentary evidence to establish their ownership. On the contrary, the appellant produced documents tracing title from the original purchase, along with copies of earlier proceedings and judgments rendered in favour of the appellant, which were not duly considered. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 8. In the present case, as per the deposition of Respondent No. 2, Pradeep Kumar Sahu, Patwari of Halka No. 33, Tehsil Office, Dhamtari, no land presently stands recorded in the name of the appellant/plaintiff, M.A. Fahim. The evidence on record further 7 establishes that the land which was previously recorded in his name had already been sold. Exhibit P-16, being the demarcation report produced by the plaintiff himself, clearly indicates that Khasra Nos. 232, 233, 234, and 254 were subdivided into 21 plots, none of which are recorded in the name of the plaintiff. Certain plots are also shown as converted land. It has further come on record that the disputed land was duly demarcated by a competent committee in the presence of the concerned parties. The objections raised by the plaintiff against the demarcation proceedings were rejected by the Tehsildar, Dhamtari. The demarcation report and its annexures do not reflect the plaintiff’s name as a recorded landowner. On the contrary, the revenue records consistently reflect the name of the plaintiff’s father as the recorded landholder. However, the plaintiff failed to produce any revenue record or documentary evidence showing title over the property in question. 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 8 Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellant/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 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 9 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 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. 15. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep