1 2026:CGHC:362 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 588 of 2019 Shri Bhagwan Shivrinarayan Math Mandir Avam Math Registered Public Trust Through Managing Trustee, Rajeshree Mahant Ramsundar Das Guru Shri Mahant Vaishnavdas, Aged About 50 Years, Bhagwan Shivrinarayan Math Mandir Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Appellant(s) versus 1 - (a) Satynarayan Sultaniya (Deleted) In Place Of: 1. Sushil Sultaniya @ Ballu Ward No. 2, Mahantpara Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Saurabh Sultaniya Ward No. 2, Mahantpara Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (b) Ramlal Sultaniya (c) Mahesh Kumar Sultaniya (d) Anand Kumar Sultaniya (e) Krishna Devi Agrawal Faguram (f) Shakuntala Devi Agrawal (g) Dropati Devi Agrawal (h) Gayatri Devi Agrawal (i) Sudha Devi Agrawal RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.06 14:36:43 +0530 2 All Son And Daughter Of Mahabir Prasad, Caste Agrawal, Respondent No. (b) to (i) R/o Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shankar Gond S/o Mannaram Gond Aged About 42 Years R/o Mahantpara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 (a) Kanchan Bai D/o Bisahul Caste Sahu, R/o Village Godhna, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 (b) Badra Bai D/o Bisahu R/o Village Tusma, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Aasha Nirmalkar, Advocate For State/Resp No.4 : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 05/01/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 09/07/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 48-A/2018 {Shri Bhagwan Shivrinarayan Math Mandir v. Satyanarayan Sultaniya (deleted) in place of Sushil Sultaniya and Others} by the learned District Judge, Janjgir- Champa, whereby the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31/03/2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2018 {Shri Bhagwan Shivrinarayan Math Mandir v. Satyanarayan Sultaniya and Others} by the learned II Civil Judge Class-1, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff has been 3 rejected. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, who is the appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed property, comprising house and land in village Mahat Para, Khasra No. 247/2, area 0.90 acres, along with two other plots of land, was transferred by way of a fictitious deed of trust to his trusted associate, Khamhari Vimah, on February 21, 1950, without any consideration, with the intention of preventing its confiscation by the government. The original defendant Mahavir, had obtained permission from the Ishwar, in 1963 to construct a road on the disputed land. Ishwar later refused to allow the construction, regarding which Mahavir filed Civil Suit No. 17A of 1968 on September 8, 1969, without impleading the plaintiff herein as a party. Even though the appeal was upheld, the judgment in the said suit is not binding on the plaintiff as he was not a party to it. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks a declaration of title to the disputed land, a declaration that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 17 A/1968 dated June 8, 1969 (Mahavir vs. Ishwar), is not binding on him, and also sought a permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 to restrain him from executing the said decree, along with costs and other reliefs. The original defendant Mahavir submitted his written statement and denied the plaint’s averments stating that the sale deed dated 21-02- 50 is a genuine registered sale deed with consideration. One of the defendant namely Bisahu Ram, also supported this fact in his written statement. Defendant Mahavir, further stated in his written statement that 4 Bisahu had sold the disputed land to him on 20.04.1963 for Rs. 300. Bisahu Ram also supported this fact in his written statement. Defendant Mahavir, in his written statement, denied the plaintiff's claim and stated that the plaintiff's application to be impleaded as a party in Civil Suit No. 17 A/1968 was rejected. The judgment in that suit is binding on the plaintiff, and since the plaintiff cannot reserve the vacant land for residential purposes, and the defendant has been in possession of the disputed land since long period, and the suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed. 3. After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of the evidence, on the basis of material available on record, the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, this appeal by the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has been heard on the question of admission, and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts 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 the courts below cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. 5 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 appellant/plaintiff failed to establish its case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellant has 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 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 6 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. 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 Sourabh/Rahul