1 2026:CGHC:5672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 95 of 2018 1 - Shiv Narayan Singh S/o Ameer Sai Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Patna, Police Station Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Dev Narayan S/o Ameer Sai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Ani Kharbat, Police Station Baikunthpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Kailash S/o Ameer Sai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ani Kharbat, Police Station Baikunthpur, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Defendants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Suhano W/o Ram Kumar Aged About 50 Years D/o Budhram, R/o Village Sos, Post, Police Station And Tehsil Khadgawaam, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.02.03 15:04:27 +0530 2 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Koriya-Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants : Shri Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board 02.02.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/defendants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Koriya (Baikunthpur), (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2A/2016 (Shiv Narayan Singh vs. Suhano and Another) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I, Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Suit 312A/2014 (Suhano vs. Shiv Narayan Singh & Others) For the sake of 3 convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition in respect of ancestral property bearing Khasra Nos. 383, 420, 573, 663 and 763, admeasuring in aggregate 1.870 hectares, situated at Village Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Korea. It was pleaded that the said property was the self-acquired property of Late Mandhari Gond, whose sons were Late Subaran (who died issueless) and Late Shobhit. After the death of the said sons, the names of Late Shobhit’s widow Late Wiffaiya and his two daughters, namely the plaintiff Suhano and defendant No.2 Phoolmat, were recorded in the revenue records and they remained in joint possession, without any partition having taken place. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No.1, who is the son of defendant No.2 and not a member of the original family of Late Mandhari Gond, in collusion with defendant No.2, obtained mutation of Khasra Nos. 573 and 763 in his favour on the basis of an alleged Will dated 03.02.1995 said to have been executed by Late Subaran. It was contended that the said mutation proceedings were 4 conducted without notice to the plaintiff and by playing fraud, and that the alleged Will is forged and fabricated. The plaintiff asserted that she came to know about the said mutation only when she was restrained from cultivating the suit land, whereafter she obtained certified copies of the orders and preferred a revenue appeal, which came to be dismissed. 3. On the aforesaid premises, the plaintiff filed the present civil suit seeking declaration that she and defendant No.2 are joint owners of the suit property, a declaration that the alleged Will and the consequent mutation in favour of defendant No.1 are null and void, partition of the entire suit property in equal shares, and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the land falling to her share. 4. The defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement, denied the material averments of the plaint and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Late Shobhit, but the daughter of Buddhu Singh alias Budh Ram and Thumki Bai of Village Bade Jhumarpara, and that her claim of lineage is false and motivated to usurp the suit lands. It was further pleaded that in the mutation proceedings before the Tahsildar, 5 Baikunthpur (Revenue Case No. 65/A-06/04-05), the plaintiff had given her consent and no-objection to the mutation of the disputed lands in favour of Defendant No. 1 on the basis of the registered Will dated 03.02.1995 executed by Late Subaran, and having so admitted, she is estopped from taking a contrary stand in the present suit. The defendants further asserted that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit lands and that Defendant No. 1 has been cultivating the same since the lifetime of Late Subaran and, after his death, is in exclusive possession as sole owner on the strength of the said registered Will, which was validly executed and duly registered and upheld in the revenue proceedings. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had fraudulently got her name entered in the revenue records without any legal basis and, therefore, has no right, title or interest in the disputed property. 5. So far as Defendant No. 3 is concerned, he remained ex parte and did not file any written statement. 6. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after framing this issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2015 allowed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit lands bearing Khasra Nos. 383, 420, 573, 6 663 and 763 were originally the property of Late Mandhari Gond and were thereafter recorded in the names of his sons, Late Subaran and Late Shobhit. After their deaths, the names of the plaintiff Suhano, defendant No. 2 Phoolmat and their mother Late were entered in the revenue records. The Court also took note of the fact that even in the mutation proceedings initiated by defendant No. 1, the property was described as ancestral in nature. On this basis, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding that the suit property is ancestral/joint family property of the parties. 7. The Trial Court further held that the defendants failed to establish that any partition had ever taken place between Late Subaran and Late Shobhit. It was further observed that the property continued to remain jointly recorded and that no separate khata or division was ever proved. Even the defence witnesses admitted that no partition was reflected in the revenue records. In the absence of any reliable evidence of partition, the Court concluded that the plea of prior partition was not proved. 8. With regard to the registered Will dated 03.02.1995, the Trial Court observed that although the Will was sought to be 7 proved by the defendants, the crucial question was whether Late Subaran had the exclusive right to bequeath the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 573 and 763. The Court held that since no prior partition was proved and the lands continued to be joint family property, it was not established that the said lands had fallen to the exclusive share of Late Subaran. Consequently, the Trial Court held that Late Subaran had no exclusive right to validly bequeath the said joint property in favour of defendant No. 1. 9. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2015, passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants/appellants preferred Civil Appeal No. 02A/2016 before the learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) Koriya (Baikunthpur) (C.G.). The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 17.11.2017, afÏrmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants. Thus this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts are contrary to law and the evidence on record. Both the Courts have erred in holding that no partition had taken place between Late Shobhit and Late Subran, despite material on 8 record showing separation. Both the Courts have further erred in declaring the duly proved Will dated 03.02.1995 executed by Late Subran in favour of Appellant No.1/Defendant No.1 as illegal and void, and in holding that Late Subran had no right to bequeath the properties bearing Khasra Nos. 573 and 763. 11. It is further submitted that both the Courts have wrongly held the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to be the legal heir of Late Shobhit and entitled to half share in the suit properties, ignoring material evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse and based on misappreciation of evidence, giving rise to the substantial questions of law framed in the present Second Appeal. The impugned judgments, therefore, deserve to be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh & Another vs. Rupnarayan Shukla & Others (S.A. No. 113/2008 decided on 20.03.2020). 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 9 13. On due appreciation of the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of judgment of both the Courts, it is apparent that the suit lands bearing Khasra Nos. 383, 420, 573, 663 and 763 were originally the property of Late Mandhari Gond and thereafter stood recorded in the names of his sons, Late Subaran and Late Shobhit, and after their deaths in the names of the plaintiff Suhano, defendant No.2 Phoolmat and their mother Late Wiffaiya. It is also apparent that the suit property is ancestral/joint family property of the parties. The defendants failed to prove any prior partition between Late Subaran and Late Shobhit, as the property continued to remain jointly recorded and no separate khata or division was established. With regard to the registered Will dated 03.02.1995, the Trial Court held that in the absence of proof of prior partition, Late Subaran had no exclusive right to bequeath the joint family property, and therefore the bequest in favour of defendant No.1 could not confer exclusive title. The First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, afÏrmed the aforesaid findings and conclusions. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts being based on proper appreciation of evidence and suffering from 10 no perversity or illegality, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. 14. The reliance placed by the Appellant upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Rupnarayan Shukla (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said matter is relating to Bhumiswami rights whereas in the present case the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and partition. 15. 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. 16. 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 their case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. The appellants have failed to 11 demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be 12 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 appellant 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 appellant 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. 21. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri