1 2026:CGHC:13595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 466 of 2015 Chamru S/o Late Ramcharan Rawat Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Goharpar, Patwari Halka No.15, R.N.M. Bhanwarpur, Tahsil, P.S. And Post Basna, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.1, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Mst. Jagmet S/o Ramcharan Rawat Aged About 60 Years R/o Bhawanpur, P.S. And Post Basna, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamal S/o Tejram Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Goharpar, Patwari Halka No.15, P.S. And Post Basna, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.2, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - (Deleted) Shantilal (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-03-2025 3.1 - Membai Wd/o Late Shantilal Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Bansula, Post And Tahsil Bashna, Civil And Revenue District SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.03.25 11:26:03 +0530 2 Mahasamund Chhattisgarh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-03- 2025 3.2 - Makhyarin Bai W/o Purni Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gabade Post Sankra, Tahsil- Pithora Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-03- 2025 3.3 - Kiran W/o Gajanand Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Arang Police Station Basna, Tahsil- Pithora, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-03- 2025 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.4, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 23/03/2026 1. The present appeal has been filed by Defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the common judgment and decree dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil 3 Appeal Nos. 54-A/2014 and 55-A/2014. 2. The said appeal arose out of the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2006 (Musammat Jagmet v. Chamru & Others), which had been filed by the plaintiff and was partly allowed. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, both the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 preferred separate civil appeals, being Civil Appeal No. 54-A/2014 (by the plaintiff) and Civil Appeal No. 55- A/2014 (by Defendant No. 1). The learned first appellate court, by a common judgment, dismissed both the appeals and afÏrmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Now, the present second appeal has been preferred by Defendant No. 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to according to their status before the trial court. 4. (a) The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for possession in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 273 and 363 area 1.46 hectare situates at village Boharpur Mahasamund and also for 4 declaring the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 as null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was in possession of her father, Ramcharan Rawat. Ramcharan died in the year 1960–61. After his death, his mother Anjora and the plaintiff Jagmet succeeded as his legal heirs. However, defendant No. 1 got the suit land mutated in his own name along with Anjora without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Against such mutation, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer in the year 1991, wherein the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer set aside the mutation order dated 04.07.1961 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Basna. Against the said order, defendant No. 1 Chamru preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur, which is still pending consideration. (b) According to the plaintiff that during the pendency of the proceedings, her mother Anjora expired. It is also pleaded that at the time of harvesting of the crop sown by the plaintiff on the suit land, there was apprehension of breach of peace, and therefore the Sub-Divisional Magistrate seized the land and the crop. The plaintiff further submits that she, along with 5 her mother Anjora, remained in possession and cultivation of the suit land for about 32 years. The order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate has not been challenged before any court. It is further pleaded that the suit land is ancestral property of the plaintiff, and defendant No. 1 has no right, title, or interest therein. The plaintiff has challenged the alleged Will dated 26.03.1993, said to have been executed by Anjora in favour of defendant No. 1 to the extent of half share, on the ground that it is forged and fabricated and that Anjora had no authority to execute such Will. It is also pleaded that defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 13.05.2002 in respect of Khasra No. 363, admeasuring 0.12 hectares, in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, which is also liable to be declared null and void. On these grounds, the plaintiff has sought declaration of title over the suit land, declaration of the sale deed as null and void and ineffective, and recovery of possession. 5. The Defendant No. 1, Chamru, has filed his written statement denying the material averments made by the plaintiff. It is contended that Defendant No. 1 was born from Anjora and that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are siblings. It is further 6 stated that Ramcharan Rawat died prior to the year 1960, and at that point of time, under the then applicable provisions of the Hindu Succession law, females were not entitled to inherit property. Accordingly, after the death of Ramcharan, the name of Defendant No. 1 came to be recorded in the revenue records in accordance with the prevailing law. The Defendant No. 1 has further pleaded that his mother, Anjora, had executed a registered Will dated 26.03.1993 in respect of the disputed land. It is also contended that the plaintiff has deserted her husband and is residing with another person after remarriage, and therefore she has no right, title, or possession over the suit land. It is further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 has already sold the land in favour of Defendants No. 2 and 3. It is also contended that title has been perfected on the basis of adverse possession. The defendant has further pleaded that the suit has not been properly valued and is barred by limitation. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for. 6. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 have filed a separate written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff. It is contended that Defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit 7 land and that they have purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2002. It is further stated that after the death of Anjora, Defendant No. 1 acquired valid title over the suit land. It is also contended that the sale deed executed in favour of Defendants No. 2 and 3 was never challenged by Anjora during her lifetime, and therefore the same is binding. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. 7. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the suit holding that the suit property originally belonged to late Ramcharan and that defendant Chamru is not his son but the son of Gopal Rawat, though born from Anjora. After the death of Ramcharan, his widow Anjora became the sole owner of the property. It was further held that Anjora had executed a valid will in favour of Chamru, but only to the extent of her 1/2 share. The remaining 1/2 share devolved upon the plaintiff Jagmet under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Accordingly, the court declared the plaintiff to be the owner of 1/2 share and entitled to possession. It was also held that the sale deed 8 dated 13.05.2002 executed by Chamru would be valid only to the extent of his share and would not affect the plaintiff’s rights. The suit was found to be within limitation and properly valued, and hence was partly decreed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, both the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 preferred civil appeals, which came to be dismissed vide common impugned order dated 09.07.2015, hence the present appeal by defendant No. 1. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are contrary to law and the evidence on record. It is contended that the learned courts have erred in granting only half share in favour of the plaintiff without properly appreciating that defendant No.1, being the child of Anjora, was equally entitled to a share in her property and, therefore, ought to have been granted at least 3/4 share. It is further argued that the findings regarding entitlement of only half share are perverse and not supported by the evidence available on record. Learned counsel also submits that the provisions of Sections 3 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act have not been correctly interpreted and applied, resulting in erroneous findings and an unsustainable judgment. Hence, 9 the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant 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. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the entire record, this Court finds that the findings recorded in the impugned judgments are based on proper and meticulous appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. It has been clearly established that the suit property originally belonged to late Ramcharan and that defendant No.1, Chamru, is not his son but the son of Gopal Rawat, though born from Anjora, and therefore he was not entitled to inherit the property of Ramcharan. The evidence of the witnesses, including the admissions made by defendant No.1 in earlier proceedings, has remained unshaken in cross-examination and conclusively proves the said fact. 11. It has further been rightly held that after the death of Ramcharan, his widow Anjora became the absolute owner of 10 the suit property, and upon her death, succession opened in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, under which the plaintiff, being her daughter, became entitled to succeed. The will executed by Anjora in favour of defendant No.1 has also been duly proved in accordance with law; however, from its contents, it is evident that the bequest was only to the extent of half share, and accordingly, defendant No.1 has rightly been held entitled only to that extent. 12. The findings with regard to title, entitlement of shares, possession, limitation and the validity of the sale deed dated 13.05.2002 are all pure findings of fact based on evidence available on record. The sale deed has correctly been held to be operative only to the extent of the share of defendant No.1 and not binding upon the plaintiff’s share. No material irregularity or misapplication of law has been demonstrated so as to warrant interference. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. 13. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely 11 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. 14. 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/ defendants No.1 & 2 failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufÏcient material. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 15. 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. 16. 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. 12 17. 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. 18. 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 13 illegality and infirmity at all. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal 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. 20. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fail and is hereby dismissed resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri