1 2026:CGHC:22634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 318 of 2018 1 - Bedram Firanta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dundera, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Narayan, Firanta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dundera, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Tilak Firanta, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Dundera, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Bisani Firanta, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Urla, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Savitri, Firanta, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bori, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Narayani, Firanta, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chunkatta, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ferhi, Kheduram, Aged About 60 Years R/o M. Jamgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Thagiya, Kheduram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Santoshi Para, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Firan, Kheduram, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Nandai Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate. For State/Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy.G.A. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.05.15 15:15:59 +0530 2 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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') has been filed by the appellants, assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 11- A/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Durg (C.G.) (for short, 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 149-A/2012 was affirmed. The parties are referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit in respect of the suit property comprising Khasra Nos. 1057, 1076 and 1078, admeasuring 0.54, 0.68 and 0.31 hectares respectively, i.e., total area 1.53 hectares, situated at Village Dundera, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Mandal Anda, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). The suit was filed for partition, declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. 4. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are real siblings, and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the step sister of father of the plaintiffs. As per the further pleadings of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were married during the lifetime of the plaintiffs' grandfather and are residing in their matrimonial 3 homes. After the death of their father, Khedu Ram, defendant Nos. 4 to 6 never claimed any right over the suit property, and thus the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were married during the lifetime of their father and they have never claimed any share in the suit property. The father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1988. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to receive their respective shares according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is further pleaded that after the death of their father, defendant Nos. 4 to 6 made an application before the Court of Tahsildar for partition and got the suit property partitioned in their favour in the year 2009 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs, which is illegal. It is further pleaded that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are not entitled to any share by partition and that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have relinquished their share in the suit property; despite that, the plaintiffs are ready to give defendant Nos. 1 to 3 their proper share. 5. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, a prayer for partition, declaration and permanent injunction was made in the plaint. 6. Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 filed a written statement, and barring the admitted pleadings, denied the adverse allegations made against them. It has been pleaded that their father, Khedu Ram, before his death on 22.11.1988, had assured equal shares to his daughters. It has been further pleaded that they were under the impression that the family members would peacefully provide 4 them with their share, and hence no claim was made earlier. It has been further pleaded that vide order dated 08.12.2008, the Court of Nayab Tahsildar, Durg (C.G.) partitioned the suit property in equal shares and handed over possession of the respective shares to defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6, and they are in possession of their shares. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. On the basis of above broad pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- i. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition of land bearing Khasra Nos. 1057, 1076, 1078, area 0.54, 0.68, 0.31 hectares, total area 1.53 hectares, situated at Village Dundera, P.H.No. 30, R.I.M. Anda, Tahsil and District Durg? ii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or entering upon the disputed land in any manner? iii. Whether defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 have lawfully obtained possession of their share in the disputed land? iv. Other relief and costs? 8. In order to prove their pleadings, the plaintiffs examined 03 witnesses. 9. The learned Trial Court, after assessment of the material and evidence available on record, decided the issues against the plaintiffs and ultimately dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree, affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal. 5 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that both the Courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. He further submits that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the step-sisters of the plaintiffs' father and they were married during the lifetime of the plaintiffs' grandfather and are residing in their matrimonial homes. He further submits that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the real sisters of the plaintiffs and they were also married during the lifetime of the father and are also residing in their matrimonial homes. They have relinquished their right over the suit property, though they were not entitled to any share in the suit property; however, the plaintiffs agreed to provide them partition of their respective shares. He further submits that from the evidence available on record, it has been duly proved that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are not entitled to any partition over the suit property. Thus, he submits that the substantial question of law proposed in the memo of appeal may be formulated and the appeal may be admitted on such substantial question of law. 11. Learned State Counsel submits that the dispute is essentially between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the State is a formal party. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 13. From the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it cannot be safely gathered that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are real sisters of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are step-sisters of the plaintiffs' father. The case of the plaintiffs is that the sisters, being married 6 during the lifetime of their father and residing in their matrimonial homes, are not entitled to any partition. 14. Issue No. 1 relates to the partition of the suit property, which has been decided in the negative by the learned Trial Court. Issue No. 2 relates to the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property. These two issues have been decided by the learned Trial Court on assessment of the evidence available on record. 15. So far as the submission of Mr. Arvind Dubey that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were married during the lifetime of their father, were residing in their matrimonial homes and never raised any objection over the suit property is concerned, the same was considered by the learned Trial Court in its judgment. It has been stated that the plaintiffs, in their cross-examination, admitted that after the death of their grandfather, the names of their father and their aunts (defendant Nos. 4 to 6) were recorded in the revenue record. 16. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment. This Court is not persuaded by the submission that defendant Nos. 4 to 6 have relinquished their right and never made any claim over the suit property, and this finding has been recorded on the basis of evidence available on record. 17. The next contention of Mr. Dubey is that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as well as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 have relinquished their right over the suit property. From a perusal of the record, it does not 7 appear that any registered relinquishment deed executed by defendant Nos. 4 to 6 has been filed or exhibited. 18. The aforesaid fact has also been admitted by P.W.3, who stated that he does not know whether any relinquishment deed was executed by defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The learned Trial Court also found that in the revenue records for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the names of defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are recorded as co- sharers. Thus, it gave a categorical finding that along with defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs, their share in the suit property is also disclosed and accordingly decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 19. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are real siblings, whereas defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the step- sisters of the plaintiffs' father. The property belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in which the daughters of the grandfather, including defendant Nos. 4 to 6, also had their respective shares. From the evidence on record, it is also evident that the names of defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were already recorded in respect of the suit property along with the father of the plaintiffs. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, as duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, appear to be based on proper appreciation of evidence. 20. For admitting an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. 8 Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314, and in Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through LRs & Ors. v. Saraswati & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. 21. After carefully examining the material and evidence available on record, this Court is not persuaded by the submission of Mr. Arvind Dubey and does not find any substantial question of law, as proposed in the memo of appeal. 22. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. All pending applications also stand dismissed. 23.No order as to costs. 24.Decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Sourabh P.