1 2026:CGHC:595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 238 of 2021 1 - Peer Mohammad S/o Munir Mohammad (Died) Nil 1A. Smt. Safina, W/o Milad, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Lakhotola, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 1B. Smt. Hasina W/o Ilahi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1C. Smt. Atina, W/o Mohabbat, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1D. Smt. Sakhina W/o Jumman, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Devri, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1E. Smt. Safari, W/o Jumman, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Devri, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1F. Smt. Hakimun, W/o Hanif, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Nevra (Tilda), Tahsil Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 1G. Smt. Latibun, W/o Javed, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sanjay Nagar, Near Bakra Market, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.01.07 10:34:06 +0530 2 1H. Smt. Hasida, W/o Hamid, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 1I. Ku. Husna D/o Late Peer Mohd. Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Amiran B, W/o Peer Mohd. Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hanif Mohd. S/o Peer Mohd. Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Hajra Bee, W/o Peer Mohd. Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pendritarai, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Guljar Mohd. W/o Peer Mohd. Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pendritarai, Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Durga Bai, W/o Manharan, R/o Village Berla, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Omshankar Rao, S/o Malesh Ram Yadav, R/o Ward No. 05, Near Santoshi Mandir, Dhanlaxmi Nagar, Bhanpuri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer 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 judgment and decree dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 77-A/2018 (Peer Mohd. and others Vs. Hajra Bee and others), affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Bemetara, District Bemetara, in Civil Suit No. 6200064-A/2014, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellants/defendants was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendants, 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 plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief with regard to land schedule-A and B attached with the plaint situated at village Anandgaon, P.H. No. 4 26, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, C.G., pleading interalia that the land in question was inherited by defendant No.1, Peer Mohammad, from his father Munir Mohammad. Defendant No.1 had two wives -plaintiff No.1 being the first wife and defendant No.2 the second and sons were born from both marriages, making the plaintiffs and defendants members of a joint family governed by Sunni Muslim Law. According to Muslim Law, all heirs were entitled to equal shares and were jointly cultivating the disputed land. It was further reflected from the pleadings that certain lands were sold to defendant No.3 when he was a minor, though the purchase was made from the income of defendant No.1, and therefore the plaintiffs had equal rights therein. Upon denial of their share, the plaintiffs sought partition, which was refused. During pendency of the suit, further alienations were made in favour of defendants No.5 and 6, which were alleged to be illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and they stated that the property in question is their self acquired property. 3. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants failed to establish their case by placing cogent material. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The 5 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/defendants 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 Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellants/defendants 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 6 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. 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. 7 11. 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