1 2026:CGHC:9169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 358 of 2024 1. Tarawati Wd/o Late Ramdas Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Bohit Lal S/o Shri Uttamlal Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. Smt. Reeta Pandey W/o Shri Tejprakash Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Kailash Pandey S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Pandey Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 5. Bileshwar S/o Shri Shubhagyaman Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 6. Smt. Gunjwati W/o Shri Dasharu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Jirakhaal, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Smt. Heeramani Wd/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Gopal Das S/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. Smt. Nirmala D/o Late Bhupatdas Presently W/o Shri Jeevandas Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 4. Ashawan Das S/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.23 16:57:57 +0530 2 5. Paaras Das S/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 6. Kumari Shakuntala D/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 7. Kumari Indira D/o Late Bhupatdas Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Maretha, Tahsil Bakawand, District Bastar (C.G.) 8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 7 : Ms. Rashi Jain, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 20.02.2026 1. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Learned 2nd District Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No. 76-A/2018 (Rambati (dead) Tarawati & Ors. Vs. Smt. Heeramani & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2013 (Smt. Heeramani & Ors. Vs. Rambati & Ors. ) whereby the 3 learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs preferred the present suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land described in Schedule “C” situated at Village Maretha, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, admeasuring 10.13 hectares. They have also prayed for declaration that the partition order dated 13.05.2010, the appellate order dated 23.06.2011, the registered sale deeds dated 21.06.2010, 15.07.2011 and 26.12.2012, and the consequential mutation proceedings in favour of defendant No. 8 are illegal, void and inoperative pleading inter alia that the suit land situated at Village Maretha, Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar, was originally recorded in the name of Shivnath, son of Motiram Kalar. Shivnath had two sons, namely Purandas and Keshavdas. Purandas had a son Ramdas. Keshavdas had a son Bhupatdas, who predeceased him in 2008, and Keshavdas himself died in 2009. The present plaintiffs are the widow and children of Bhupatdas, thus claiming through the branch of Keshavdas. The plaintiffs pleaded that after the death of Keshavdas, when mutation proceedings were initiated, 4 they discovered that Rambati (deceased defendant) had falsely claimed herself to be the widow of Purandas and her niece Tarawati (defendant No.2) as the widow of Ramdas, and had got their names recorded in the revenue records. It was alleged that both women were legally married elsewhere and had no lawful status in Shivnath’s family. Subsequently, on the basis of such entries, a partition order dated 13.05.2010 was passed by the Tahsildar, which was affirmed in appeal on 23.06.2011. Thereafter, portions of the suit land were sold to defendants No. 3 to 6 through registered sale deeds. The plaintiffs, claiming themselves to be the lawful heirs from the branch of Keshavdas, filed the present suit seeking declaration of title, declaration that the partition order, appellate order and subsequent sale deeds are void, and permanent injunction against interference. 3. Before the trial Court, Defendants No. 01, 02 and 08 and Defendants No. 03, 04 and 05 filed separate written statements. In addition to the facts admitted in paragraph 02 of the judgment, they pleaded that the plaintiffs and Defendants No. 01 and 02 belong to the Kalar caste, recognized as a backward class by the Government, and are governed by the customary practices of the community in matters of marriage, birth, death and succession. As per 5 such customs, second marriage is permissible in certain circumstances, including where the first wife is issueless, dies, or deserts her husband. It was pleaded that Shivnath had two wives, Mahangi and Bhagwati. Bhagwati died issueless. Purandas and Keshavdas were born from Mahangi. Bhupatdas was the son of Keshavdas whereas the plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Bhupatdas and plaintiffs No.2 to 7 are his children. From the wedlock of Purandas and Mehtarin (first wife), Ramdas was born. After Mehtarin left the matrimonial home, Purandas contracted a customary marriage with Rambati (deceased defendant). Similarly, Ramdas firstly married with Sumati, who later deserted him, and thereafter he married Taravati (defendant No.2) according to community custom. From the said marriage of Ramdas and Taravati, a daughter namely; Yogvati @ Bharti was born, who subsequently died. Thereafter, they adopted Bileshwar (defendant No.8) through customary rites, though no formal adoption deed was executed. The suit land was originally recorded in the name of Shivnath. During his lifetime his sons Purandas and Keshavdas were cultivating the land separately in equal shares. After the death of Purandas and later Keshavdas, the names of their legal heirs were recorded in the revenue records. In 2009, partition proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, Bakawand, and by order 6 dated 13.05.2010 in Revenue Case No. 4/A-27/2009-10, partition was effected, which was affirmed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bastar, on 23.06.2011. The plaintiffs participated in the said proceedings and are bound by those orders. In the said proceedings, certain plaintiffs admitted the status of Defendant No. 01 as the wife of Purandas. After partition, Defendants No. 01 and 02 sold portion of their respective shares through registered sale deeds dated 21.06.2010 and 26.12.2012 in favour of Defendants No. 03, 04 and 06. The adopted son (Defendant No. 08) was also recorded in the revenue records. 4. Defendant No. 06 further pleaded that the genealogy tree filed by the plaintiffs is incomplete, as it omits Bhagwati (second wife of Shivnath), Taravati (second wife of Ramdas), and Yogvati @ Bharti. It was further contended that the suit is undervalued, barred by limitation, and as such the same is not maintainable. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed as many as 11 issues and given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and after a full fledged trial rendered a decision suiting the plaintiff on the ground that the trial Court held that the 7 defendants failed to establish that Ramvati was the legally wedded wife of Purandas and that Taravati was the legally wedded wife of Ramdas. The plea of customary marriage as per Kalar community practice was not proved by cogent evidence. No reliable evidence was adduced to prove the existence of a valid custom permitting such marriages, nor was there proof of dissolution of earlier marriages. In particular, the evidence disclosed that Taravati’s earlier marriage had not been legally dissolved and therefore her subsequent marriage was void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Likewise, the alleged marriage of Rambati with Purandas was not proved in accordance with law. The alleged adoption of Defendant No. 08 was also not established, as no adoption deed or satisfactory proof of valid adoption ceremonies was produced. Consequently, the Court held that after the death of Purandas and Ramdas without legally proved heirs, the entire suit property devolved upon Keshavdas and thereafter upon his son Bhupatdas. Upon their death, the plaintiffs, being the widow and children of Bhupatdas, became the lawful owners of the suit property. Although the challenge to the revenue partition order dated 13.05.2010 and its appellate confirmation dated 23.06.2011 was not accepted on the ground that the orders were not produced and the civil court could not 8 declare the revenue orders void in such manner, the Court held that Rambati and Taravati had no right, title or interest in the suit land. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by them in favour of Defendants No. 03, 04, 05 and 06 were declared illegal and void. The suit was found to be within limitation, properly valued, and within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Accordingly, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendants/ appellants have preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that defendant No. 1, Rambati (deceased) and defendant No. 2, Taravati, were married to Purandas and Ramdas respectively in accordance with the customary rites and practices prevailing in their community. It is submitted that such customary marriages are valid in law and, being legally wedded wives, they are entitled to succeed to and claim a share in the suit property. It is further urged that the 9 both the courts have erred in holding otherwise and in denying them their lawful entitlement. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 9. It is observed that the appellants have failed to substantiate their plea of customary marriage by cogent and reliable evidence. No documentary proof has been produced to establish the alleged marriages, nor has any convincing evidence been adduced to prove the existence and validity of the custom under which such marriages are claimed to have been performed. In the absence of documentary evidence or satisfactory proof of essential ceremonies and lawful dissolution of prior marriages, the contention that Rambati and Taravati were legally wedded wives cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is held to be not proved. 10. Further from the material available on record, it is apparent that the Appellate Court, upon thorough re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It first observed that the relationship of Mehtarin as the legally wedded wife of Purandas and Ramdas as their son stood admitted by the defendants in their pleadings; therefore, in 10 view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, no further proof was required. The Court then examined the defence plea that Purandas had married Rambati after alleged separation from Mehtarin and that Ramdas had married Taravati after separation from Raimati. On scrutiny of the evidence, it was found that Rambati’s earlier marriage with Lakhmu Kadyari was admitted and no document evidencing dissolution of that marriage was produced. Similarly, Taravati admitted her earlier marriage with Goldu Kalar and the absence of any legally recognized divorce. In absence of proof of valid dissolution of the earlier marriages, the alleged subsequent marriages with Purandas and Ramdas were not proved in accordance with law. The plea of a special custom prevailing in the Kalar community was also rejected, as defence witnesses themselves admitted that marriages and ceremonies in their community are performed according to Hindu rites and no specific custom contrary to Hindu law was established. The Court further held that mere entries in revenue records describing Rambati or Taravati as “wife” were not conclusive proof of lawful marriage or title. Consequently, it was established that Mehtarin was the sole legally wedded wife of Purandas and Raymati was the sole legally wedded wife of Ramdas, and that Rambati and Taravati had no lawful status or inheritance rights in the 11 suit property. As defendants Nos. 1 and 2 themselves had no valid title, the registered sale deeds executed by them in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were declared void and inoperative. The suit was also held to be within limitation and within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Concluding that the plaintiffs had proved their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the Appellate Court found no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2018. 11. Even otherwise, 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. 12 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. 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 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 13 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 illegality and infirmity at all. 17. 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. 18. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti