1 2026:CGHC:8061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 325 of 2025 Judgment reserved on 11/02/2026 Judgment delivered on 13/02/2026 1 - Sandeep Das Gupta S/o Shri S.K. Das Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 04, Swarn Bhumi, Vidhansabha Road, Saddu, Raipur Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 10, 11) 2 - Smt. Vindhya Soni W/o Shri Paras Soni Aged About 32 Years R/o Mig-32, Ganga Vihar Colony, Amlidih, Raipur Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Appellants(s) versus 1 - Chitku Ram (Dead) Through Legal Heirs Aged About 70 Years, S/o Late Gajraj Kalar (Def No. 6) 1.1 - (A) Kamal Singh Sinha S/o Late Chitku Ram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 1.2 - (B) Thakur Ram Sinha S/o Late Chitku Ram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 1.3 - (C) Smt. Kaushalya Bai Sinha D/o Late Chitku Ram Aged About 60 Years W/o Shri Jhambhu Ram, R/o Village Kesara, Post Kesara, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 1.4 - (D) Smt. Amrit Bai Sinha D/o Late Chitku Ram Aged About 53 Years W/o Shri Daniram Sinha R/o Village Dhaurabhata, Post Puri, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.13 16:20:57 +0530 2 1.5 - (E) Smt. Brij Bai Sinha D/o Late Chitku Ram Aged About 48 Years W/o Shri Loknath Sinha, R/o Village And Post Patan, Tahsil And Distt. Durg (C.G.) 1.6 - (F) Smt. Rukmani W/o Shri Milan Sinha Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Dodaki, Tahsil And Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 2 - Churaman S/o Mangturam Kalar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Def No. 01) 3 - Tejram S/o Mangturam Kalar Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Def No. 02) 4 - Netram S/o Mangturam Kalar Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Def No. 03) 5 - Pawan Kumar S/o Mangturam Kalar Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Def No. 04) 6 - Premin Bai D/o Mangturam Kalar Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Def No. 05) 7 - Tejin Bai D/o Mangtu Ram Kalar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Gadadih Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) (Def No. 07) 8 - Makhanlal (Dead) Through Legal Heirs S/o Late Ramprasad (Plaintiff No.1) 8.1 - (A) Radhabai W/o Late Santosh R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 8.2 - (B) Durgesh S/o Late Santosh R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 8.3 - (C) Kumari Ganga D/o Late Santosh R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 8.4 - (D) Santram S/o Late Santosh R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 8.5 - (E) Dasoda D/o Late Santosh R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 8.6 - (F) Smt. Jambai W/o Late Makhan R/o Village Pacheda, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 9 - Makhnu S/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 02) 10 - Jayantri Bai D/o Late Ram Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o Makeshwar Ward, Dhamtari (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 03) 11 - Govind Dewangan S/o Late Aaskaran Dewangan R/o Village Khorpa, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Def No. 09) 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) (Defendant No.08) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Resp. No. 1A to 1F : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For Resp. No. 12/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J C A V Judgment 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/defendant No. 10 & 11 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 16/05/2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 01 A/2021 (Sandeep Das Gupta v. Chitku Ram) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 01/12/2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Kurud, Dhamtari, C.G. in Civil Suit No. 85A/2008 [Makhan Lal & Others v. Churaman & Others] whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant No. 10 & 11 and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 4 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 3. (a) Facts of the case are that a Civil Suit No. 85/2008 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurud, District Dhamtari, wherein the original plaintiffs namely; Late Makhan Lal, Makhnu and Jayanti, had sought declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession in respect of various agricultural lands situated at Village Silghat, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, total admeasuring 5.28 acres; however, the said suit was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiffs on 31/01/2020, which is evident from para 1 of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 1/12/2020. (b) During the pendency of the proceedings, Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 preferred a counter-claim in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 200/2 (part) admeasuring 0.80 hectare and 0.17 hectare (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), seeking declaration of title in favour of Defendant No.6, delivery of possession and permanent injunction against Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, whereas Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 also filed a separate counter-claim claiming declaration of ownership and injunction over the same property. The admitted genealogy between the parties is not in dispute. (c) The case of Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 is that the property originally belonged to Late Banshilal as ancestral property and after his death in the year 1940, the same was equally partitioned between his sons Late Gajaraj and Late Shivlal, and that the entire share of Shivlal was subsequently sold by the plaintiffs, who are his grandchildren, and their 5 predecessors, lastly by a registered sale deed dated 24/05/1982 for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/- along with delivery of possession, and therefore the plaintiffs have no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further pleaded that Khasra No. 200, formed after settlement from earlier khasra numbers, fell to the share of Late Gajaraj and thereafter to Defendant No. 6 Chhitku Ram, who is the recorded owner in possession. It is also their case that in earlier Civil Suit No. 115A/11 an ex parte decree dated 23/04/2011 was passed against them, which was subsequently set aside on 21/08/2013 upon an application filed by the defendants under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC; however, despite setting aside of the ex parte decree, the Additional Tahsildar, Bhakhara, proceeded with mutation proceedings and effected partition of Khasra No. 200, creating Khasra No. 200/2 in favour of certain plaintiffs and retaining part in the name of Defendant No. 6, which according to them is illegal and contrary to the civil court’s order. (d) The plaintiffs, in reply to the counter-claim, denied execution of any sale deed and contended that apart from the land measuring 5.28 acres, additional ancestral property existed; that after the death of Gajaraj, his heirs were in joint possession; that Late Shivlal had only one daughter, Phoolbasan Bai (mother of plaintiffs), who remained in possession during her lifetime and after her death the plaintiffs succeeded to her share; and that when they demanded possession in the year 1999, the defendants refused and dispossessed them. Defendant 6 Nos. 10 and 11 denied the counter-claim of Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and reiterated their independent claim over the suit property. 4. The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Kurud, by judgment and decree dated 01/12/2020, decreed the counter-claim preferred by Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and rejected the counter-claim filed by Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, holding that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 200 (new), formed from old Khasra Nos. 216 and 219/1, stood recorded in the name of Defendant No. 6 Chhitku and had fallen to his share in an earlier oral partition, as reflected from mutation register Ex. D/2 and other revenue records, which remained unrebutted by the plaintiffs. The Trial Court further held that though earlier revenue entries of the year 1954-55 showed joint names, the subsequent mutation and revenue documents established exclusive recording in favour of Chhitku, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title, particularly after withdrawal of their suit and failure to adduce cogent evidence following setting aside of the ex parte decree. It was also found that the Additional Tahsildar had partitioned Khasra No. 200 during the interregnum and created Khasra No. 200/2 in favour of the plaintiffs; however, such mutation did not confer title after restoration of suit and recalling ex parte decree in absence of proof of ownership. The Court further held that the plaintiffs, having failed to establish their right over Khasra No. 200/2 (0.97 hectare), could not convey valid title to Defendant Nos. 9, 10 and 11 by sale deed executed during pendency of the litigation, and that such transfer was hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (doctrine of lis pendens). Consequently, it was concluded that Defendant 7 Nos. 1 to 7 had successfully proved their entitlement to declaration and possession, whereas Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in the suit property. 5. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, the defendant No. 10 & 11 preferred the first appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 10 & 11, giving rise to substantial questions of law for consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 would submit that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court have committed grave illegality in decreeing the counter-claim of Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 by placing reliance primarily upon mutation entries and revenue records, which, in settled proposition of law, neither confer nor extinguish title over immovable property. It is contended that the finding of exclusive title in favour of Defendant No. 6 is founded mainly on Ex. D/2 and subsequent revenue entries, without any legally admissible and cogent evidence proving the alleged oral partition or lawful derivation of ownership. Learned counsel would argue that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and entries therein are maintained only for revenue purposes; therefore, in absence of proof of a valid partition or transfer, such entries cannot be treated as documents of title. It is further submitted that the burden to establish lawful title squarely lay upon Defendant Nos. 1 to 7, as they had sought declaration and possession on the basis of an independent claim, and they were required to succeed on the strength of their own evidence. However, the 8 learned Courts have erroneously shifted the burden upon Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 and presumed title merely on the basis of revenue entries, which is contrary to settled legal principles. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from substantial error of law and perversity in appreciation of evidence, giving rise to substantial questions of law in the present Second Appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. 8. The present second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the CPC, which circumscribes the jurisdiction of this Court only to substantial questions of law. The First Appellate Court on due consideration of the material available on record, dismissed the first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, interference in second appeal is permissible only if the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are shown to be perverse, contrary to law, or based on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence. 9. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record and the rival submissions advanced, it emerges that the core issue for determination was whether the original plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 8 to 10) had any lawful right, title or authority to transfer the suit property bearing Khasra No. 200/2 (part), admeasuring 0.80 hectare and 0.17 hectare to Defendant No.9 & subsequently to Defendant No. 10 & 11, 9 and whether any valid title could pass to Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 on the basis of the sale deeds executed during pendency of the proceedings. 10. The record reveals that though an ex parte decree dated 23/04/2011 had earlier declared certain rights in favour of the plaintiffs, the said decree was set aside on 21/08/2013 and the matter was restored to its original stage. Consequently, any mutation or partition order effected by the revenue authorities on 11/04/2013 on the basis of the ex parte decree lost its foundation and became unsustainable in law. Despite this, during pendency of the matter, the plaintiffs executed a sale deed dated 22/05/2017 in favour of Defendant No. 9 and thereafter, through subsequent conveyances dated 02/02/2019, the property was transferred to Defendant Nos. 10 and 11. 11. The evidence on record, particularly the agreement dated 15/05/1955 (Ex. D/1) executed between the predecessors Gajaraj and Shivlal, coupled with the mutation registers Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3, clearly demonstrates that the ancestral property had already been partitioned long back and that the lands forming part of Khasra No. 200 (new), derived from old Khasra Nos. 216 and 219/1, had fallen to the exclusive share of Defendant No. 6 Chhitku Ram. Significantly, the Namantran Panji (Ex. D/2 and D/3) records the suit land in the name of Defendant No. 6 pursuant to the earlier partition. It is also important to note that Ex.D/2 & Ex.D/3, mutation register contains signature of all the coparcener of the property in question, and the plaintiffs failed to produce any cogent documentary evidence to rebut the said entries. The signature of the coparcener in the mutation register showing partition of 10 coparcenary land has been brought on record without any rebuttal to the same. Hence, the sale of the land in dispute, which is fallen in the share of defendant No. 6 by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.9 and subsequently to the defendant No. 10 & 11 has rightly been declared void in absence of valid title of plaintiffs over the suit land by both the Courts. 12. Even the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs, including Kistbandi Khatoni and Khasra Panchsala for the year 2009–10 (Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2), reflect that Khasra No. 200 stood recorded in the name of Defendant No. 6. The re-numbering list (Ex. P/14) further establishes that Khasra No. 200 was formed from earlier khasra numbers, none of which were shown to be exclusively owned or possessed by the plaintiffs after the earlier partition. Thus, the plaintiffs utterly failed to establish their subsisting title over the suit property. 13. It is a settled principle under Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 that only a person competent to transfer and entitled to transferable property can convey valid title. Where the transferor himself has no title, the transferee acquires none on the principle of "no one can give what they do not have” (nemo dat quod non habet). In the present case, once it stands established that the plaintiffs had no lawful title over Khasra No. 200/2, no valid right could pass to Defendant No. 9 under the sale deed dated 22/05/2017, and consequently, Defendant Nos. 10 and 11, claiming through Defendant No. 9, cannot acquire a better title than their predecessor. Further, as the transfers were effected during pendency of litigation, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of 11 Property Act squarely applies, rendering such transfers subject to the final adjudication of rights. 14. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the Namantran Panji stood in the name of Defendant No. 6 and that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving their title is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The learned First Appellate Court, upon independent re-appraisal of the entire evidence, has rightly affirmed the said findings, holding that there exists no legal infirmity or perversity in the judgment and decree dated 01/12/2020 passed by the trial Court. 15. This Court finds that the appellants are seeking re-appreciation of evidence and substitution of concurrent findings of fact, which is impermissible in second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perversity or substantial question of law is demonstrated. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been shown in the impugned judgments. 16. In State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, the Supreme Court, while reiterating the settled proposition of law, has held that when concurrent findings of fact are assailed in a Second Appeal, interference is permissible only if the appellants is able to demonstrate that such findings are vitiated in law, having been recorded de hors the pleadings, based on misreading of material documentary evidence, recorded in contravention of any statutory provision, or are such which no judicially acting court could reasonably have arrived at. 12 17. Be that as it may, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the questions sought to be projected cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of a “substantial question of law” within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The issues raised are essentially questions of fact, already concurrently decided by both the courts upon due appreciation of evidence. The appellants have failed to demonstrate the existence of any substantial question of law warranting interference by this Court. 18. Upon careful examination of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court as well as the trial Court are purely findings of fact, based on evidence available on record, and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The grounds urged by the appellants essentially seek re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in a Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is made out. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have failed to make out any case warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. 20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. The judgment and decree dated 01/12/2020 passed by the trial Court, as affirmed in appeal by the first appellate Court, is hereby upheld. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri