1 2026:CGHC:1874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 181 of 2019 Krishna Lal Soni S/o Ram Kumar Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Faraswan, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. --- (Plaintiff), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Ram Kumar Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village - Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At Budhwari Bazar Korba, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ---(Defendants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Raj Kumar Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dwarika Prasad Soni S/o Hanuman Prasad Soni R/o Village Faraswani, Tahsil Kartala, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., Presently Residing At M.O. - 44, H.T.P.P. Colony, Darri, Tashil Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.01.16 16:29:23 +0530 2 4 - Smt. Gulaba Bai D/o Hanuman Prasad Soni W/o Bhagwan Prasad Soni, R/o Darang, Tahsil Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Akashdeep Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.02.2018 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 15- A/2015 (Krishna Lal Soni v. Ram Kumar Soni & Others) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 passed by the learned First Civil Judge, Class- I, Korba Distt- Korba (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 03A/2013(Krishna Lal Soni v. Ram Kumar Soni 3 & Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff preferred the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to the lands situated at village- Faraswani. P.H. No. 08, Revenue Circle Barpali, Tehsil- Kartala, District- Korba (C.G.). pleading inter alia that a partition took place between Hanuma Prasad and his sons, i.e., defendant No. 01 to 03, in Revenue Case No. 22/A- 27/2002-03 before the Nayab Tehsildar, Barpali, in which Hanuman Prasad, the grandfather of the plaintiff, also received his share comprising the disputed suit lands. Hanuman Prasad Soni died in the year 2005 leaving behind his wife, Pili Bai, who thereafter was taken care of by the present plaintiff and resided with him. After the said partition and death of Hanuman Prasad, the names of defendant No. 01 to 03 were mutated along with Pili Bai in the revenue records in respect of the suit lands vide Proposal No. 24 dated 06.05.2006 passed by Gram Panchayat Faraswani, which fact remained unknown to the plaintiff and defendant No. 01. That, out of love and affection, and being fully conscious, Pili Bai executed a registered Will dated 13.12.2012 in favour of 4 the plaintiff while undergoing treatment in hospital. Subsequently, due to financial requirements for her medical treatment, she decided to sell a portion of the suit land, however, defendant No. 02 and 03 objected stating that the land stood recorded in their names. On coming to know of the said mutation, Pili Bai, the plaintiff, and defendant No. 01 were taken by surprise, and during the course of treatment Pili Bai expired on 16.12.2012. That, the cause of action for filing the present civil suit arose on 14.12.2012 when defendant No. 03 restrained Pili Bai from selling the suit land. 3. The defendants No. 2 & 3 submitted their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They have stated that Hanuman Prasad purchased Khasra No. 1183/1 from defendant No. 02 and, during his lifetime, sold the same to defendant No. 03. The residential houses standing on the suit khasra numbers were amicably apportioned by Hanuman Prasad by mutual arrangement among family members. After his death, the suit land, being ancestral and not self-acquired, was lawfully mutated in the names of Peela Bai and defendants No. 01 to 04 as legal heirs by the Gram Panchayat. Peela Bai was regularly cared for and medically treated by 5 defendants No. 01 to 03, who shared all expenses. Taking undue advantage of her poor health and loneliness, defendant No. 01, in conspiracy with the plaintiff, fraudulently procured a purported Will dated 13.12.2012 while Peela Bai was in ICU, not in a sound physical or mental condition, and incapable of executing any legal document. Earlier, Peela Bai had executed a consent deed dated 18.07.2007 in favour of defendant No. 02. Peela Bai never intended to sell the land and was fully aware that the property stood jointly recorded in her name along with the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim is false, misconceived, and liable to be dismissed. 4. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2015 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal. 5. While dismissing the suit by the learned trial Court as well as the First Appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, it has categorically been observed that the plaintiff has stated that in the year 2002–03, Hanuman Prasad divided the suit land 6 between himself and defendants No. 01 to 03 and separately took the portion mentioned in Schedule ‘A’. After this partition, the property belonged to Hanuman Prasad, but the family relationship was not ended. Therefore, after the death of Hanuman Prasad without a Will, his property devolved upon all his legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and not only upon Peela Bai. Accordingly, the property was divided into five equal shares, and Peela Bai could legally execute a Will only to the extent of her 1/5th share. Hence, the alleged Will (Exhibit P-8) is not valid in law and does not give any right or title to the plaintiff. The trial Court also observed that after execution of the alleged Will, Pili Bai died within a period of three days, which creates a doubt about her physical and mental condition and hence the genuineness of the Will is doubtful. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the material available on record. 7. In respect of genuineness of the Will, recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Leela and Others v Muruganantham and Others reported in (2025) 4 SCC 289 held that if objection raised on genuineness of the will by pointing out suspicious 7 circumstances, propounder has to remove them and the propounder has to establish that testator has signed the will in a sound disposing state of mind and understanding nature and effect of disposition. In the case at hand, the circumstances surrounding the will concurrently held by trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and hence in absence of any perversity in appreciation of evidence by both the Courts, interference of this Court is not called for. 7. 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. 8. 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/plaintiffs failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any 8 perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be 9 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. 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 First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib