1 2026:CGHC:841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 170 of 2019 1 - Smt. Ratna Vaishnav W/o Late Anand Das Vaishnav, Aged About 48 Years R/o Kudurmal, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ravikant Vaishnav S/o Late Anand Das Vaishnav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Kudurmal, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shashikant Vaishnav, S/o Late Anand Das Vaishnav, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kudurmal, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shashikala Vaishnav, D/o Late Anand Das Vaishnav, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kudurmal, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Shakuntala Bai W/o Late Sampatram, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Semipali, Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mayaram S/o Late Sampatram, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Semipali, Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Sunita Sahu D/o Late Sampat Ram Sahu, Aged About 45 Years W/o Durgaprasad Sahu, R/o Village Kudri ( Devlapath) Tahsil Barpali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Geeta Sahu D/o Late Sampatram Sahu, Aged About 40 Years W/o Sukhnandan Prasad Sahu, R/o Lig 225 Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Devkumari, D/o Late Sampatram Sahu Aged About 33 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.08 11:22:44 +0530 2 Years W/o Rajkishore Sahu, R/o Shanti Nagar, Balco Nagar, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Dhanesh Ram, (Died) Nil, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6.1 - A. Ukeshwar Sahu S/o Dhanesh Ram Sahu R/o Village Semipali Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6.2 - B. Dharam Sahu, S/o Dhaneshram Sahu, R/o Village Semipali Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Nandani Pandey W/o Surendra Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Surendra Pandey, S/o Shri Kanshi Prasad Pandey, Aged About 48 Years R/o Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. K.K. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 07.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/defendants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 22/01/2019 passed by the Additional District Judge FTC, Korba in Civil Appeal No.9-A/2018 (Smt. Ratna Vaishnav & Ors Vs. Smt. Shakuntala Bai & Ors) arising out of the judgment dated 27/04/2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge Class-I to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Class -I, Korba in Civil Suit 3 No.104-A/2013 [Sampatram Sahu (died) through LRs Smt. Shakuntala Bai and Ors Vs. Anand Das (died) through LRs Smt. Ratna Vaishnav & Ors]. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs preferred the Civil Suit pleading inter alia that the original plaintiff, Sampatram, was at the relevant time employed as a Driver with S.E.C.L., Gevra, and was residing in Dipka Colony. Apart from the suit land, the plaintiff purchased another land bearing Khasra No. 953, area 0.07 acre, from Defendant No. 2, Dhaneshram Sahu, through a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1993, obtained possession thereof, and has been in continuous cultivating possession of the same. The suit land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. To the east of the suit land lies the Champa–Korba Road and the land of Navratandas; to the west lies the land of Haridas and Defendant No. 3, Nandini Pandey; to the north lies the land of Defendant No. 4, Surendra Pandey and Nandini Pandey; and to the south lies the plaintiff’s own land. On 15.06.2003, when the plaintiff reached his aforesaid lands situated at Urga for agricultural work, he saw that Defendant No. 1, Ananddas Vaishnav, was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and, without the plaintiff’s permission or consent, had encroached upon the agricultural land under the plaintiff’s possession and, by forcibly entering the same, was illegally carrying out building construction 4 work. The suit land is a portion of original Khasra No. 117, the owner of which is Dhaneshram, who had sold portions of the said land to several persons. When the plaintiff restrained Defendant No. 1 from carrying out construction on the suit land, Defendant No. 1 claimed that he had won the case filed against Nandini Pandey and Surendra Pandey and stated that he was carrying out construction on the suit land as per their instructions. However, on the basis of the certificate obtained by the defendant, construction work was being carried out by Nandini Pandey and Ananddas Vaishnav on Khasra No. 117 situated in village Urga. The area under construction has been marked in red ink in the schedule annexed to the plaint. Defendant No. 1, with the assistance of Defendants No. 3 and 4 and as per their instructions, forcibly entered the suit land belonging to the plaintiff and, by carrying out illegal construction, is dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. 3. The plaintiff has further pleaded in his plaint that the legal heirs of Defendant No. 1 have made unauthorized encroachment over an area of 0.04 acre of the suit land and, in the constructed shop thereon, one portion was earlier given to Anand S.T.D./P.C.O. and the other portion was let out to an agent of a company. After closing the same, at present one shop is being run as Chandasi Dawakhana by Dr. D. K. Vishwas and the other shop is being operated as Shri Durga Graphics by Shri Ashok Verma. Whereas, Defendants No. 3 and 4 have constructed an 5 unauthorized shopping complex on the remaining adjoining agricultural land of the suit property and are running Ganesh General Stores therein. Thus, stating that the cause of action arose on 15.06.2003, and valuing the suit at Rs. 600/- for the relief of declaration and Rs. 600/- for permanent injunction, and after paying the prescribed court fee of Rs. 100/- each, the plaintiff has sought relief for declaration of title over the suit land and permanent injunction, and further prayed that the illegal constructions raised by Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 on the suit land be demolished and possession/vacant physical possession be delivered to the plaintiff. 4. In the said Civil Suit, the defendant No.1 submitted the written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendant averred that the plaintiff has not provided the boundaries, map, or the length and breadth of the land allegedly purchased by him. According to him, how the plaintiff’s name came to be recorded in the revenue records is not within the knowledge of the defendants. The document annexed with the plaint, being a photocopy of the certified copy of a portion of the map attached as the schedule, does not separately demarcate the suit land bearing Khasra No. 117/1. Lines have merely been drawn on the map, and by tampering with the certified copy, arbitrary markings have been made in an attempt to depict the suit land. The said map has not been prepared by the Halka Patwari, nor is the suit land clearly described in Schedule ‘A’ annexed with the plaint. 6 Therefore, in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the suit land has not been clearly identified, the plaint is liable to be rejected. Further, in the plaintiff’s sale deed, there was no Champa–Korba road on the east side of the said land, and on the date stated by the plaintiff as the date of purchase, no land of the vendor remained adjoining the Champa–Korba road. The defendant further averred that the plaintiff never had possession or superior title over the said land, and the land is neither Khasra No. 117/1 nor agricultural land, as the said land has not been used for agricultural purposes for the past 15 years, but has remained barren land. 5. Defendant No. 1 has further pleaded in his written statement that in Village Urga, then falling under Halka Patwari No. 69, the land bearing Khasra No. 117, admeasuring 0.64 acre, recorded as Bhumiswami land, was originally owned by Dhanesh Ram’s father, Sevak Ram. Out of the said land, 0.08 acre (i.e., 8 decimal) was acquired in the year 1964 by the erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh, along with other lands, for the construction of the Kudmura–Kudurmal public road, through the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Division). However, the acquired land continued to be recorded in the names of the previous landowners in the revenue records and was never mutated in the name of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Prior to the year 1993, out of Khasra No. 7 117, portions of land were sold and possession delivered as follows: two decimal to Badriprasad; two decimal to Mansai and Dansai; two decimal to Ramkumar and Shivkumar; two decimal to Surendra Kumar Pandey; two decimal to Udhodas; four decimal to Asharfilal; two decimal to Smt. Radhika Devi; two decimal each to Smt. Chandralekha Devi; five decimal to Surendra Kumar Pandey; and two decimal to Krishna Rab, in total, 27 decimal of land was sold and possession handed over to the respective purchasers. These parcels were subsequently recorded in the revenue records as Khasra Nos. 117/2, 117/3, 117/4, 117/5, 117/6, 117/7, 117/8, 117/9, 117/10, 117/11, and 117/13. Thereafter, though in the revenue records 0.37 acre was shown to remain in the ownership of Dhanesh Ram, in reality only 0.29 acre of land actually remained with him. Out of the said remaining land, 18½ decimal, along with 0.07 acre from Khasra No. 953, was sold to Defendants No. 3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 19.03.1993 and possession was delivered, which land was recorded as Khasra No. 117/12. On the same day, the remaining land of Khasra No. 117, which in the records was shown as Khasra No. 117/1 admeasuring 0.18½ acre but which in reality measured only 0.10½ acre, together with 0.07 acre from Khasra No. 953, was sold in favour of the plaintiff by a registered sale deed and possession was handed over. Thus, on the basis of the registered sale deed, the plaintiff acquired actual possession only of Khasra No. 117/1 admeasuring 0.10½ acre. 8 The land bearing Khasra No. 117/7 admeasuring 0.04 acre, which had been purchased by Asharfilal on 14.03.1988, was subsequently purchased by Smt. Nandani Pandey through a registered sale deed. Further, the land bearing Khasra No. 117/11 admeasuring 2,180 square feet, which had been purchased by Surendra Kumar Pandey on 11.01.1989, was purchased by Mahesh Kumar through a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1989, who thereafter sold the same to Defendant No. 1 Ananddas by a registered sale deed dated 06.04.1996 and delivered possession thereof. In the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, the area mentioned was as per the vendor’s revenue account; however, in reality, land of that extent was not available on the spot. The plaintiff is bound to recognize and abide by the principle of priority under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No. 1 has raised construction only over the portion of land bearing Khasra No. 117/11 admeasuring 0.05 acre, measuring 25 feet × 87 feet, which is his own land. The said land is residential in nature. By judgment and decree dated 27.07.2001 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 26-A/97, Anant Das v. Nandani Pandey and others, the said land was declared to be the right and property of Defendant No. 1, which declaration was affirmed by the First Appellate Court in Case No. 10-A/2002 by judgment and decree dated 17.04.2003. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The suit land does not belong to the ownership or 9 possession of the plaintiff. On the aforesaid grounds, Defendant No. 1 has prayed that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed with costs and that compensation in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- be awarded to Defendant No. 1 under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It is contended on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4 that a written statement has been filed to the effect that the demarcation report produced by the plaintiff itself clearly shows that the lands of the plaintiff and those of Defendants No. 3 and 4 are separate and distinct. In the said demarcation report, there is no finding, objection, remark, or allegation to the effect that Defendants No. 3 and 4 have encroached upon the plaintiff’s land. The land of Defendants No. 3 and 4 is converted/diverted land, the demarcation of which has already been carried out, and they are in possession of their own land by virtue of their independent title and rights. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have never stated that the plaintiff’s land belongs to Ananddas. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have already carried out construction on their own lands bearing Khasra Nos. 117/12 and 953/2, along with other lands, much prior in time. No construction or encroachment has been made by defendants No. 3 and 4 on the suit land. These defendants have not given any assistance, cooperation, or instructions for the construction of the house of Defendant No. 1, Ananddas, and he has constructed the house on his own, of his own free will, and at his own expense. In addition to the above pleadings, Defendants No. 3 and 4 have specifically stated that in Village Urga, land 10 bearing Khasra No. 117/12 admeasuring 0.18½ acre and Khasra No. 953/2 admeasuring 0.07 acre stands recorded in their names, which they had purchased from Ganesh Ram Sahu. Defendants No. 3 and 4 have also got their land demarcated. Thus, on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action or claim against them and has instituted the suit only with the intention of harassing them, Defendants No. 3 and 4 have prayed for dismissal of the suit against them. 7. In the suit, the other defendants remained ex-parte. 8. The learned trial Court after framing the issues and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, as also material available on record, allowed the suit observing that the illegal construction raised by Defendant No. 1 over a portion of the suit land measuring 25 × 70 sq.feet shall be removed by Defendant No. 1 or his legal heirs within a period of two months from the date of the judgment, and vacant possession of the said portion shall be handed over to the legal heirs of the plaintiff, Sampatram. In the event of failure on the part of Defendant No. 1 or his legal heirs to do so, the legal heirs of the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the said illegal construction demolished from the aforesaid portion of the suit land and to obtain vacant possession thereof, at their own expense. 9. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants filed the Civil Appeal before the learned 1st appellate Court who by order 11 impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellants/defendants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 11. 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 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. 12. 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 failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 13. 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. 12 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant 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. 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 order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 13 17. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep