1 2026:CGHC:4643 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 300 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Ganeshu Ram Aged About 52 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Legar Successor Of Amar Chand Son Of Bhukhau Satnami) 2 - Brijesh Kumar (Died) Through Legar Heirs (Copy Of Death Certificate Is Being Filed Herewith As Annexure A-3) 2.1 - A. Rekha Bai Markande Wd/o Late Brijesh Kumar Aged About 34 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Legal Successor Of Amar Chand Son Of Bhukhau Satnami) 2.2 - B. Jasmin Markande D/o Late Brijesh Kumar Aged About 13 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Legal Successor Of Amar Chand Son Of Bhukhau Satnami) (The Appellant Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Rekha Bai Markande, Wife Of Late Brijesh Kumar) 2.3 - C. Dhanesh Kumar Markande S/o Late Brijesh Kumar Aged About 11 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Legal Successor Of Amar Chand Son Of Bhukhau Satnami) (The Appellant Is Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Rekha Bai Markande, Wife Of Late Brijesh Kumar) 3 - Rajni Bai W/o Amarchand Aged About 72 Years (Legal Successor Of Amar Chand Son Of Bhukhau Satnami) R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Ganeshu Ram S/o Latelu Ram Banjare Aged About 50 Years Caste Satnami (Legal Successor Of Janaki Bai, W/o Latelu Ram AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.30 13:47:15 +0530 2 Satnami), R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamal S/o Latelu Ram Banjare Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami (Legal Successor Of Janaki Bai, W/o Latelu Ram Satnami), R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Komal S/o Latelu Ram Banjare Aged About 35 Years Caste Satnami (Legal Successor Of Janaki Bai, W/o Latelu Ram Satnami), R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Santoshi D/o Latelu Ram Banjare Aged About 40 Years Caste Satnami (Legal Successor Of Janaki Bai, W/o Latelu Ram Satnami), R/o Village Mudpar (Sandi), Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. B.L. Sahu with Mr. B.L. Sahu with Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocates For Respondent/intervenor : Mr. Diwesh Kumar with Ms. Deepali Gupta, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 28.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/defendants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 23/04/2025 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.5A/2021 (Ganeshu Ram & Ors Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27/02/2021 passed by the learned First Civil Judge Class-I, Balodabazar Bhatapar, C.G. in Civil Suit 3 No.32A/2016 (Ganeshu Ram & Ors Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors), whereby the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. (a) The plaintiffs preferred the suit seeking declaration of title to the 1/2 share in the land situated at Village Mudpar, Patwari Halka No. 10, Revenue Inspector Circle Sandi, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar, comprising Khasra Numbers 98, 126, 161/1, 322 and 394/1, having areas of 0.065 hectare, 0.561 hectare, 0.334 hectare, 0.587 hectare and 0.365 hectare respectively, totaling five khasra numbers with a total area of 1.912 hectares, along with relief of partition and consequential (separate) possession, and for grant of permanent injunction pleading, inter alia, that the suit land was recorded in the names of Amarchand, son of Bhukhau Satnami, and Janki Bai, daughter of Bhukhau Satnami. It is also an admitted fact that Amarchand, son of Bhukhau Satnami, the father of defendants No. 1 to 2 and husband of defendant No.3 submitted an Ikrarnama dated 23.01.2015 before the Revenue Court, Sandi, Tahsil Palari, for deletion of the name of Janki Bai, daughter of Bhukhau, the mother of the plaintiffs and a co-khatedar, from the revenue records. It is further an admitted fact that the plaintiffs’ mother, late Janki Bai, expired on 04/05/2015. (b) The case of the plaintiffs is that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 4 98, 126, 161/1, 322 and 394/1, admeasuring 0.065 hectare, 0.561 hectare, 0.334 hectare, 0.587 hectare and 0.365 hectare respectively, totaling five khasra numbers with a total area of 1.912 hectares, situated at Village Mudpar, Patwari Halka No. 10, Revenue Inspector Circle Sandi, Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, stood recorded in the names of Amarchand, son of Bhukhau Satnami, and Janki Bai, daughter of Bhukhau Satnami. The father of defendants No. 1 to 3, namely Amarchand, son of Bhukhau Satnami, submitted an application along with an Ikrarnama (consent deed) dated 23.01.2015 before the Revenue Court, Sandi, Tahsil Palari, seeking deletion of the name of Janki Bai, daughter of Bhukhau, who was the mother of the plaintiffs and a co-khatedar, from the revenue records. The said application was registered by the Tahsildar, Palari, as Revenue Case No. 28-A/6 for the year 2014–2015 and was taken up for adjudication. The plaintiffs’ mother, Janki Bai, never voluntarily executed any document or deed of relinquishment in favour of the father of the defendants, nor did she ever give her consent before the Revenue Court. However, the Tahsildar, Palari, accepted the application submitted by the father of the defendants and passed an order directing deletion of the name of the plaintiffs’ mother, Janki Bai, from the revenue records. (c) The plaintiffs have further pleaded in their plaint that Janki Bai, daughter of Bhukhau, expired on 04.05.2015 due to illness. 5 Janki Bai never appeared before the Revenue Court to record her statement, nor did she submit any consent letter, nor did she execute any registered document transferring her title in favour of Amarchand. Due to Janki Bai’s illness and subsequent death, the plaintiffs could not obtain knowledge of the order in a timely manner. After came to know about the order passed by the Tahsildar, Palari, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balodabazar. However, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Balodabazar, on the ground of limitation. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were constrained to institute the present suit before the Court. One-half share of the suit land belonged to the plaintiffs’ mother, Janki Bai, and Amarchand had no legal right to get the said land recorded in his own name. Both Amarchand and Janki Bai had expired prior to the filing of the appeal before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer; therefore, the legal heirs of Janki Bai, namely the plaintiffs, have instituted the suit against the legal heirs of Amarchand, i.e., the defendants. 3. In the said Civil Suit, the defendants No.1 to 3 submitted their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They submitted that the plaintiffs’ mother, late Smt. Janki Bai, daughter of late Bhukhau Satnami, had recorded her statement before the competent authority regarding relinquishment of her rights in the suit land. As a consequence thereof, the concerned competent 6 revenue authority, by its order dated 22.06.1980, deleted the name of late Smt. Janki Bai from the ownership rights over the suit land. Accordingly, an entry was made and duly signed by the concerned officer in the Rin Pustika No. 283404, under the column relating to details of mutations. Further, late Smt. Janki Bai herself executed an affidavit/consent deed dated 23.01.2015 in favour of late Amarchand Satnami, the father of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, by affixing her thumb impression before witnesses at the office of the Notary, Palari. She also personally appeared before the Naib Tahsildar, Palari, where her statement was recorded, pursuant to which the Tahsildar passed the relevant order. The plaintiffs were fully aware of the aforesaid facts. Had there been any fabrication or forgery of documents in this regard, the plaintiffs would certainly have lodged a complaint or registered an FIR against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 at the concerned police station. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the order of the Tahsildar, Palari, was dismissed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Balodabazar–Bhatapara, vide order dated 22.03.2016. 4. The defendant Nos. 5 to 10 also submitted their written statement and denied the plaint averments and submitted that they are the legal heirs of deceased Amarchand, and as such are entitled to inherit his property by right of succession. It has further been pleaded that the plaintiffs have neither properly valued the suit nor affixed the prescribed court fees. The claim of the plaintiffs is 7 frivolous, baseless, and devoid of merit. 5. 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 that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit land. The Trial Court further observed that the plaintiffs had not made any averment regarding their possession over the suit land. In these circumstances, since the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land, there was no occasion to grant a permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. 6. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the Civil Appeal before the learned appellate Court. By the judgment impugned, the learned appellate Court allowed the Civil Appeal & reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellants/defendants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the defendants are in peaceful and continuous possession of the subject land till date and have been cultivating paddy thereon without any obstruction or complaint. On the other hand, the respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the subject land. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court are contrary to the facts and materials on record and are therefore liable to be set aside. 8 8. Learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the intervenor purchased the suit land in 2015, whereas the original suit was instituted by the respondents on 28.07.2016. He further submits that the intervenor has not filed any application before the learned Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, and has failed to make any submission regarding the genuineness of the relinquishment deed relied upon in the proceedings. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 10. In the present appeal, it is evident from the record that Amarchand submitted an application before the Revenue Court on 05.01.2015 seeking deletion of the name of Janki Bai on the basis of the so alleged agreement deed, whereas the so-called agreement deed had not been executed till the date of submission of application on 05/01/2015. The so called agreement Ex.D-3 appears to be executed only on 23.01.2015. Therefore, the said agreement deed was not executed voluntarily & the execution of said document dated 23/01/2015 is itself doubtful. It is not at all possible that a document executed on 23/01/2015 can be produced on 05/01/2015. Hence, the Trial Court, having relied upon the same, has passed the judgment and decree, which is contrary to the evidence on record. 11. Dular Singh (P.W.-04) stated in his examination-in-chief that on 23.01.2015, Jankibai executed a consent deed before a Notary, 9 in which Jankibai affixed her thumb impression, and he signed the document as a witness. In paragraph 06 of his cross- examination, this witness stated that no other persons from village Mudpar were present in the Tehsildar Office, Palari, except Jankibai and Amarchand. He could not say who had got the consent deed typed. He stated that the contents of the consent deed were handwritten. In paragraph 07, this witness stated that he could not tell which lands Jankibai had executed the consent deed for. In paragraph 12 of the cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had earlier stated that the agreement deed/Ikrarnama was a handwritten document, but his signatures appear on Exhibit P-3, Part-A, and the said document is a typed document. The examination of agreement deed/Ikrarnama, Exhibit D-3, shows that the document Exhibit D- 3 is not registered. 12. Upon careful consideration of the record, it is evident that Amarchand filed an application before the Revenue Court on 05.01.2015 seeking deletion of the name of the co-tenure holder Jankibai, whereas the alleged agreement deed was executed later, on 23.01.2015. This timing casts doubt on the voluntary execution of the deed prior to the application. The attesting witness, Dular Singh (P.W.-04), deposed that Jankibai executed the consent deed before a Notary by affixing her thumb impression in his presence. However, he admitted in cross- examination that no other village members were present, he did 10 not know who typed the document, and he was unaware of the specific lands covered. The document, though typed, remains unregistered. Considering that Jankibai was elderly and illiterate, and that none of her adult children were present during execution, the circumstances raise serious doubts about the deed being voluntarily and knowingly executed. 13. This Court finds that the Second Appeal essentially seeks reappreciation of evidence and substitution of findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is impermissible within the limited scope of Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present Second Appeal. 14. Having considered the entire facts situation of the case and for the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment and decree are just and proper and there is no illegality at all. Accordingly, the present appeal is devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep