1 2026:CGHC:22633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 754 of 2017 1 - Dasi Ram Satnami S/o Shri Sarha Satnami, Aged About 68 Years, Occupation Agriculturist And Labourer, R/o Village Nandeli, Police Station Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Tahluram Panika S/o Shri Prem Das Panika, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Nandeli, P. S. Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Prem Das S/o Shri Mohan Das, Aged About 73 Years Caste Panika Manikpuri, R/o Village Nandeli, P. S. Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Collector, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Narayan Prasad, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.05.15 12:27:13 +0530 2 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short, 'First Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/2016, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (for short, 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2013 was affirmed. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the disputed property in this appeal comprises 3.00 acres out of 29.15 acres of Government grazing land bearing Khasra No. 18/1, situated at Village Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). (The parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court). 4. The plaintiff filed a suit in respect of the suit property, inter alia, pleading that he has been in possession of the suit property for more than 40 years and, by incurring expenditure, has made it cultivable. He is still in possession of the suit property and is cultivating the same. It was further pleaded that in the year 1996, the Village Kotwar, Prem Das/Defendant No. 2, lodged a criminal case against the plaintiff at Police Station Jaijaipur, in which the plaintiff was acquitted vide judgment dated 25.10.1999. In the said case, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was found. 5. It was also pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2, without having any title, interest or possession in relation to the suit property, have been continuously proclaiming in the village since 15.09.2013 that the plaintiff would not be allowed to harvest the 3 paddy grown on the land in his possession and that the same would be harvested by them. Hence, a suit for permanent injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 was filed. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit property, a decree for confirmation of possession may also be granted. 6. The defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the allegations and averments made against them. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- S.No. Issues Finding 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get his possession confirmed over 3 acres of Government pasture land out of Khasra No. 18/01, area 29.15 acres, situated at Village Nandeli? “No” 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the disputed land? “No” 3. Relief and costs. As per para 10 8. In order to prove his pleadings, the appellant/plaintiff examined 03 witnesses. 9. The learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, decided the aforesaid issues against the appellant and ultimately dismissed the suit. 10.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff/appellant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned First Appellate Court, which was also 4 dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the present second appeal. 11.Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse to the record. From the evidence on record, it is quite evident that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for a long period. Even if it is Government land, defendants No. 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Thus, the substantial question of law as proposed in the memo of appeal may be admitted for hearing. 12.Learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court. 13.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 14.Issue No. 1 relates to confirmation of the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land. This issue was decided in the negative. While deciding this issue, the learned Trial Court meticulously examined the three witnesses of the plaintiff, including the plaintiff himself, PW-2 Rendhya Kewat and PW-3 Chhabi Sahu. From a perusal of their depositions, the learned Trial Court found that the suit property is recorded in the name of the Government. Though they orally stated that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for a long period, the learned Trial Court found that no documentary evidence was placed on record to prove such possession. The learned Trial Court further found that no notice was given by the plaintiff to 5 the Government. It also found that defendant No. 3, being the State Government, has been arrayed as a necessary party, but there is neither compliance of Section 80(1) of the CPC nor any pleading in this regard in the plaint. Accordingly, it held that the suit is not maintainable and decided Issue No. 1 in the negative against the plaintiff. 15. Issue No. 2 relates to the grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, which was also decided in the negative. 16.After assessing the evidence and material available on record, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff could not prove his legal title or possession over the suit property. Thus, the issue was decided against the plaintiff. 17.The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment. The First Appellate Court held that in order to establish title and possession over the suit property, the plaintiff is required to prove legal title. It observed that legal title cannot be presumed merely on the basis of oral evidence of possession. The First Appellate Court further observed that the plaintiff was required to prove his title categorically, but there is no satisfactory documentary or oral evidence on record. It also found that the suit property is Government land recorded in the name of the Government and ultimately dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. 18.For admitting an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908, the involvement of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta 6 and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314, and in Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors. v. Saraswati & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. 19.After carefully examining the material and evidence available on record, this Court is not persuaded by the submission of Mr. P.K. Patel that any substantial question of law, as proposed in the memo of appeal, is involved. 20.Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. All pending applications also stand dismissed. 21.No order as to costs. 22.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Sourabh P.