1 2026:CGHC:5429-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 246 of 2019 1 - Mukund Lal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 62 Years 2 - Rajendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years 3 - Umashankar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years 4 - Bholashankar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years 5 - Ramashankar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years 6 - Ravishankar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years 7 - Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Bharatlal Agrawal, Aged About 44 Years 8 - Smt. Kesari Bai Agrawal W/o Late Shri Bharatalal Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years No. 1 to 8 are the Members of the Hindu Undivided Family, Through Mukundlal Agrawal (Karta), R/o Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through The Power of Attorney Holder Sandeep Agrawal, S/o Mukundlal Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gomti Industries, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Gopalchand Mandal (Died), Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 18.08.2025 SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.02.02 10:37:51 +0530 2 1.1 - Smt. Radharani Mandal W/o Late Gopalchand Mandal, Aged About 65 Years 1.2 - Kartik Mandal S/o Late Gopalchand Mandal, Aged About 45 Years 1.3 - Ganesh Mandal S/o Late Gopalchand Mandal, Aged About 43 Years All are R/o Behind Vidya Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dularchand Mandal (Dead) Through Lrs., 2.(A) Smt. Tandra Mandal W/o Late Shri Dularchand Mandal 2.(B) Smt. Kavita W/o Sajal Ghosh 2.(C) Sangeeta D/o Late Shri Dularchand Mandal 3 - Ravichandra Mandal S/o Late Shri Ramchand Mandal, Aged About 46 Years 1 to 3 are R/o Behind Vidya Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Basanti Mandal W/o Late Shri Nepalchand Mandal, Aged About 62 Years 5 - Sushil Mandal S/o Late Shri Nepalchand Mandal, Aged About 38 Years 6 - Sujit Mandal S/o Late Shri Nepalchand Mandal, Aged About 36 Years 7 - Sanjeev Mandal S/o Late Shri Nepalchand Mandal, Aged About 34 Years 4 to 7 are R/o Behind Vidya Hospital, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Santosh Lahoti S/o Madanlal Lahoti, Aged About 41 Years R/o Near Nupur Ladies Jim, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Kiran Lahoti W/o Santosh Lahoti, R/o Near Nupur Ladies Jim, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. 3 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 31/01/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.38-A/2011, whereby, the plaintiffs’ claim for declaration of title and injunction, has been dismissed. Parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the concerned trial Court. 2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction, alleging inter alia, that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 09.08.1971 (Ex.P-10), the part of land bearing Khasra Nos. 29/1 and 30/1, total admeasuring 5300/- sq.ft., situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur, was purchased by their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Bharatlal Agrawal from one Ramchandra Mandal, who was the predecessor- in-interest of the defendants No. 1 to 7 and obtained the possession over it. It is pleaded further that after the death of said Ramchandra Mandal, the defendants No. 1 to 7 have sold the part of the alleged land, i.e. Khasra Nos. 29/1 and 30/1 admeasuring 0.686 hectare (4288 sq.ft.) to defendant No.8- Santosh Lahoti by executing a registered deed of sale dated 30.01.2010 (Ex.D-1) for a consideration of Rs.27,91,500/- (Rs.Twenty Seven Lacs Ninety One 4 Thousand Five Hundred only), but while alienating as such, the land admeasuring 1072 sq.ft., forming part of their land purchased under the said sale deed, dated 09.08.1971, was also sold to him, without any authority, therefore, the alleged deed of sale, dated 30.01.2010 be declared as null and void and, praying further for restraining the defendant No.8 from interference of their peaceful possession. 3) While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendant No.8 that by virtue of a registered deed of sale, dated 30.01.2010, he acquired valid title upon the part of alleged admeasuring 4288 sq.ft., from defendants No. 1 to 7 without incorporating the alleged piece of land, i.e. 1072 sq.ft., nor he is interfering in their peaceful possession, therefore, the claim as made by them deserves to be dismissed. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that by virtue of the registered deed of sale, dated 09.08.1971 (Ex.P-10), the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Bharatlal Agrawal had purchased the part of land bearing Khasra No.29/1 and 30/1 admeasuring 5300 sq.ft. as shown in the alleged sale (Ex.P-10). It held further that the suit as framed suffers for non-joinder of necessary parties, as the daughters of said Bharatlal Agrawal, and the sons of his deceased son, namely, Ramkumar were not impleaded and, held further that they failed to prove that the alleged deed of sale, dated 30.01.2010 was invalidly executed, nor the defendant No.8, who purchased the part of alleged land, i.e. Khasra No. 29/1 and 30/1 admeasuring 4288 sq.ft. 5 of land from defendants No. 1 to 7, has interfered in their peaceful possession and, in consequence, dismissed the claim. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the trial Court has committed an illegality in holding that the defendant No.8 has acquired his valid title over the part of Khasra Nos.29/1 and 30/1 admeasuring 4288 sq.ft. under the registered deed of sale, dated 30.01.2010 and, erred further in holding that he is not interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs while dismissing the claim. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and decree as passed by the trial court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the part of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 29/1 and 30/1, total admeasuring 5300/- sq.ft. situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur was purchased by the plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, namely, Bharatlal Agrawal under the registered deed of sale dated 09.08.1971 (Ex.P-10), while the part of said lands, i.e. Khasra Nos. 29/1 and 30/1 admeasuring 0.686 hectare (4288 sq.ft.) by defendant No.8 from defendants No. 1 to 7 under the registered deed of sale, dated 30.01.2010 (Ex.D-1). According to the plaintiffs as revealed from para 5 of the plaint, 1072 sq.ft. of land which they purchased under the registered deed of sale, dated 09.08.1971(Ex.P-10) was sold to defendant No.8- 6 Santosh Lahoti at the time of execution of the registered deed of sale dated 30.01.2010 (Ex.D-1), purported to have been executed by defendants No. 1 to 7 in his favour. The burden is, therefore, heavily upon them to establish the said fact, but no cogent and reliable evidence to this effect has, however, been placed on record. Even, they did not apply for demarcation that the alleged piece of land, i.e. 1072 sq.ft. forming part of their land was sold to said defendant No.8, nor any evidence was led by them that he has interfered in their peaceful possession, so as to hold that they are entitled to get the reliefs, as claimed. That apart, the entire sale, dated 30.01.2010 (Ex.D-1) cannot be held to be declared as null and void merely based upon their alleged plea that the defendants No. 1 to 7 have sold their alleged piece of land, i.e. 1072 sq.ft. to him. 9) Insofar as the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. and ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, is concerned as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs is, however, distinguishable from the facts involved herein and, therefore, no reliance could be placed upon it. 10) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit is, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge sunita