1 2026:CGHC:5203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 43 of 2019 1. Purshottam Singh S/o Late Shriram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi , Uproda ,district Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Narottam Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi , Uproda ,district Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Ganga Ram W/o Narottam Singh Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi , Uproda ,district Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt, Ramkunwar W/o Shriram Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi , Uproda ,district Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Shivkumari W/o Narayan Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi Uproda District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2. Minor Vinod Kumar S/o Narayan Singh Aged About 10 Years Natural Guardian Mother ,smt. Shiv Smt. Shivkumari W/o Narayan R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi Uproda Distric Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Chanda Kumar @ Chhota S/o Narayan Singh Aged About 5 Years Natural Guardian Mother ,smt. Shivkumari W/o Narayan Singh R/o Village Kumhari Darri, Tahsil Podi Uproda Distric Korba JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.02 10:50:06 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Smt. Radhabai W/o Devsingh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Sirri , ,tahsil Podi ,uproda ,district Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Smt. Ganeshiya Bai W/o Manmohan Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Kumhari ,darri Tahsil Podi Uproda , District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6. Devkunwar S/o Manmohan Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Kumhari ,darri Tahsil Podi Uproda , District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. T. R. Patel on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 30.01.2026 1. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Katghora in Civil Appeal No. 8A/2013 (Pursottam Singh and Ors. Vs. Smt. Shivkumari) affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Class-II, Katghora Korba in Civil Suit No. 7A/2009 (Late Narayan Singh and Ors. Vs. Purushottam Singh and Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ 3 respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff preferred the suit for partition and declaration of title over 1/3rd share of the property pleading, inter alia, that the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 172, 173, 2082, 211 and 224, admeasuring 0.061, 0.040, 0.101, 0.607 and 0.769 hectares respectively, situated at Village Kumhari Darri, P.H.N. No. 2, Revenue Circle Pasa, Tahsil Podi Uproda, District Korba (C.G.), hereinafter referred to as the suit lands, are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Earlier, the suit lands were recorded in the name of Amolsai S/o Newa. After his death, the names of his legal heirs namely Shriram, Manmohan Singh, Radha Bai, Ganeshiya and Dev Kunwar ought to have been entered in the revenue records. It is further pleaded that Shriram, the ancestor of defendants No. 1 to 4, taking advantage of the illiteracy and lack of legal knowledge of the other descendants, namely Manmohan Singh and Radha Bai, deceitfully and without their knowledge got his name alone entered in the revenue records, leaving out the names of the other lawful heirs. After the death of Amolsai, in fact both Manmohan Singh and Shriram jointly came into possession of the suit lands and thereafter their respective descendants have continued in joint possession of the same. The plaintiffs have stated that in the year 2007, when plaintiff Late Narayan Singh inspected the revenue records, he came to know that the name of 4 his ancestor Manmohan Singh was not entered therein. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar, Katghora, which was registered as Case No. रा०्ቚ०क० 2/6 अ-6/06-07 (Narayan Singh v. Purushottam & Ors.), but the said application was rejected by order dated 04.06.2007. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an application before the Sahayak Bhoo Adhikshak, Bhoo Abhilekh, Korba, who by order dated 15.06.2007 allowed the mutation and directed entry of the name of Manmohan Singh in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendants No. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Katghora, registered as Appeal No. अपील ्ቚ०क ० 32 अ-06/2007-08 (Purushottam & Ors. v. Narayan Singh), which was allowed by order dated 22.09.2008, thereby setting aside the order of mutation. The cause of action for filing the present suit arose from the aforesaid proceedings and orders. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the present suit seeking declaration of their 1/3rd share in the suit lands. 3. The defendants No. 1 to 4, in their written statement, have denied the claim of the plaintiffs and have pleaded that the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, by judgment dated 12.10.1981 passed in Civil Suit No. 09-A/1980, declared Shriram, the ancestor of defendants No. 1 to 4, to be the exclusive title holder of the suit lands. It is further contended that certain ancestral lands bearing Khasra Nos. 346/110, 346/111, 346/112 and 346/113, 5 admeasuring 0.182, 0.142, 0.243 and 1.173 hectares respectively, are jointly recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and defendants, however, the suit lands do not form part of the said joint properties. They have denied all rest of the avertions of the plaintiffs and claimed that the plaintiffs have no title or possession to the suit property and prays for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed as many as 4 issues and given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and after a full fledged trial allowed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the grounds that the suit property is ancestral property and ought to have been entered in the joint names of the plaintiffs and defendants and thus the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share of the suit property. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendants/ appellants have preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the the suit property is the self acquired property of the father of the appellants and not the ancestral property. He has further contented that the suit 6 property is different from the ancestral property, and the ancestral property has been registered in the joint names of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He further contended that in Civil Suit No. 9A/1980 (Shriram Vs. Gayaram and Ors.) the suit land was decreed in favour of the father of the appellant and hence he is entitled to be the sole owner of the suit property. Learned counsel further contends that the Learned Trial Court as well as the Learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate these material facts and committed a gross error in law and on facts in dismissing the claim of the defendants /appellants. 7. From the material available on record, it is evident that, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, both the Courts have recorded a categorical finding that the defendants /appellants have not provided any evidence to establish the fact regarding as to how the suit land was acquired by his father Shriram and from whom it was acquired. Therefore, it was presumed that the suit land belongs to and was in the possession of Amolsai and thus the suit land is ancestral property and thus is entitled for 1/3rd share of the suit property and further regarding the Civil Suit 9A/1980 also the land was declared to be in possession of Amolsai being ancestral property. 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 7 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 recorded concurrent findings, on the basis of evidence available on record. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the concurrent 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. 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 well as by 8 the learned First appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 12.Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti