1 2026:CGHC:1908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 714 of 2019 1 - Smt. Kamla Bai Baghel Wd/o Late Mohan Baghel Aged About 57 Years Occupation House Wife, R/o Mohalla Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vijay Kumar Baghel S/o Late Mohan Baghel Aged About 37 Years Occupation Government Employee, District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. R/o Mohalla Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Kumar Baghel S/o Late Mohan Baghel Aged About 32 Years R/o Mohalla Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Dhaniram S/o Poonam Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chikli, Front Of Ram Saptah Chowk, Shitla Mandir Road, Tahsil And District Rajnadgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sallu Pandey S/o Pannu Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Lata Pandey W/o Sallu Pandey Aged About 47 Years R/o Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr.Malay Shrivastava, Advocate AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 10:49:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment 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 30/07/2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2018 (Smt. Kamla Bai Baghel & Ors Vs. Dhaniram & Ors) arising out of the judgment dated 18/05/2018 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Civil Suit No.24-A/2011 (Smt. Kamlabai Baghel & Ors Vs. Dhaniram & Ors) . For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit against the defendants seeking declaration that the construction work shown in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint is illegal encroachment by the defendant no.2 and 3, the same should be removed as the construction work done in the land is the road of the plaintiffs as per sale deed dated 26/05/2005 and the defendants be restrained from interfering in the approach road of the plaintiffs. Further case of the plaintiffs are that the plaintiffs have purchased a land situated at Village- Chikli, Stationpara, Shikshak Nagar, Ward No.10, Rajnandgaon bearing part of Khasra No.444/2 area 0.06 decimal from defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed dated 26/05/2005 and at the south of the land, there was a remaining land of the 3 defendant no.1 which was left by the defendant no.1 for the road of the plaintiffs. On the same day, the defendant no.1 has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant no.2 and 3 for the part of Khasra No.444/2, area 0.03 decimal land. Inspite of mentioning in the sale deed of the plaintiffs, the defendant no.2 and 3 have encroached upon the land which was left for the road of the plaintiffs and started construction over the land which was objected by the plaintiffs, but when the defendant no.2 and 3 have illegal encroached and done the construction, hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit. 3. In the said Civil Suit, the defendants have filed their written statement in which they have denied the plaint averment and stated that nothing has been mentioned in the sale deed of the defendant no.2 and 3 with regard to the road of the plaintiffs in the south direction of the land. 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding therein that the plaintiffs have an alternative route available for ingress and egress. There is no boundary wall in front of the houses of defendant nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs use the porch constructed in the houses of defendant nos. 2 and 3 for coming and going. The plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that the defendants No.2 & 3 have constructed over and above the 4 land sold to them i.e. khasra No.444/2, area 0.03 decimal. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the Civil Appeal before the learned appellate Court who by order impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 7. 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 sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any 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 5 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 appellants and the proposed question of law cannot be 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 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 6 the learned trial Court as well as by the learned 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 Gowri/ Amardeep