1 2026:CGHC:5419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 582 of 2024 1 - Dr. Somesh Pandey S/o Late Parmanand Pandey Aged About 67 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chetan Anand Pandey S/o Late Parmanand Pandey Aged About 65 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rakesh Pandey S/o Late Parmanand Pandey Aged About 58 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Shanti Pandey W/o Late Parmanand Pandey Aged About 84 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey (Since Died) S/o Late Jagannath Pandey, Through Lrs. 1(A) Devshankar Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(B) Tulsidas Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(C) Tukaram Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.04 10:48:47 +0530 2 1(D) Jagjeevan Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(E) Janki Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(F) Sharda Pandey S/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(G) Gayatri Pandey D/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 1(H) Jaineshwari Pandey D/o Late Vishweshwar Prasad Pandey R/o Village Aasana, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Krishna Pandey (Since Died) S/o Late Godawari Prasad Pandey. Through Lrs. 2(A) Smt. Shanti Pandey (Since Died And Deleted) W/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2(B) Manoj Pandey S/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2(C) Awdhesh Pandey S/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2(D) Lokesh Pandey S/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2(E) Bholeshankar Pandey S/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2(F) Haripriya D/o Late Shree Krishna Pandey R/o Vijay Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jogeshwar Pandey S/o Late Vidyadhar Pandey R/o Village Chhote Jeerakhal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Narendra S/o Late Laxminarayan Pandey R/o Village Chhote Jeerakhal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 3 5 - Kodand S/o Late Laxminarayan Pandey R/o Village Chhote Jeerakhal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Yudhisthir S/o Late Laxminarayan Pandey R/o Village Chhote Jeerakhal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Gandhari Devi W/o Late Laxminarayan Pandey R/o Village Chhote Jeerakhal, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 31/01/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 30-A/2018, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 31-A/2002, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. The appellants/ plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia 4 that the suit properties described in Schedules (घ), (प) and (फ) are ancestral/self-acquired properties of their predecessors, over which the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have joint title and possession; that the property described in Schedule (ख) is the self-acquired property of late Parmanand Pandey and exclusively belongs to the plaintiffs; and that the agricultural lands described in Schedules (ड) and (क) are ancestral properties in which the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share. It is further pleaded that an earlier decree dated 26.03.1981 passed in Civil Suit No. 4-A/79 and affirmed in Appeal No. 186/1981 by judgment dated 16.08.1990 was obtained by defendant No.1’s predecessor by misrepresentation, without impleading necessary parties, and under an illegal proceeding under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, and therefore the said decree is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence the plaintiffs have sought declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property. 3. Per contra, defendant No.1, while admitting certain facts, denied the remaining pleadings of the plaintiffs and contended that no cause of action arose in their favour. It was pleaded that the subject matter of the present suit had already been adjudicated in Civil Suit No. 4-A/79, which was decided by judgment and decree dated 26.03.1981 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bastar, and the said decree was affirmed in First Appeal No. 186/1981 by the High Court vide judgment dated 16.08.1990. It was further contended that the parties to the earlier proceedings were 5 substantially the same and the subject matter and issues involved were identical; therefore, the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. According to the defendants, the suit properties were joint family properties, and the rights of the parties stood finally determined in the earlier proceedings, rendering the present claim not maintainable. Hence the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and possession over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 31/03/2018, the plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the learned Courts have erred in dismissing the suit by mechanically applying Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that the earlier judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 4-A/1979 and affirmed in FA No. 186/1981 by the High Court were obtained on the basis of incorrect pleadings by treating self-acquired properties as joint Hindu family properties and without impleading 6 necessary parties, namely the present appellants. It is argued that the suit properties are either self-acquired or ancestral properties, in which the appellants are entitled to declaration and partition, and therefore the findings recorded by the learned Courts holding the suit to be barred by res judicata are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record and give rise to substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission, and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as also the learned First Appellate Court have been carefully examined. 7. In the case at hand, both the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, have concurrently held that the subject matter of the suit had already been adjudicated in Civil Suit No. 4-A/1979, decided by judgment and decree dated 26.03.1981, which stood affirmed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in First Appeal No. 186/1981 vide judgment dated 16.08.1990. Both the Courts have further recorded a categorical finding that the parties, subject matter and issues involved in the present suit are substantially the same as those in the earlier proceedings and that the suit properties are joint Hindu family properties, the rights whereof stood finally determined. The plea of the appellants that the earlier decree is not binding on them has been duly considered and negated. No 7 perversity, misreading of evidence or legal infirmity is demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not 8 ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 12. 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. 13. 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 the learned trial Court as as well as by the learned First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal 9 proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much 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. 15. 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 $. Bhilwar