1 2026:CGHC:340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 599 of 2015 1 - Late Bhajan Bai (Since Dead) Through Her Legal Heirs-, 1.A - Hirmaniya W/o Phagalram, Aged About 65 Years, Caste Kanwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Khamar Toli, P. S. And Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 1.B - Sonpati D/o Phagalram, Aged About 42 Years Caste Kanwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Khamar Toli, Boda P. S. And Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Appellant/Plaintiffs Versus 1 - Dilsai S/o Devsai, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sarmana, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanmatiya W/o Dilsai, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sarmana, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.05 16:36:46 +0530 2 05/01/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, whereby the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2008 passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. For convenience, the parties are referred to according to their status before the Trial Court. 2. The original plaintiff had instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 14.12.1998 be declared null and void on the grounds of fraud and incapacity of the executant. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, accepted the plaintiff’s case and decreed the suit in their favour. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the defendants preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the decree of the Trial Court, holding that the sale deed was duly executed and registered, and that the plaintiffs failed to establish fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of capacity of the executant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard on the question of admission. The impugned judgments of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have been carefully examined. 4. It is well-settled that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of 3 validity, and the burden to rebut this presumption lies heavily upon the party who challenges it. 5. The scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is extremely limited. The High Court can interfere only when a substantial question of law arises. Re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings of fact is impermissible. Findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. 6. In the present case, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by misapplication of law. The questions of law raised by the appellants essentially relate to appreciation of evidence and factual conclusions, which do not fall within the scope of Section 100 CPC. 7. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. 8. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul