1 2026:CGHC:26929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 746 of 2017 1 - Hulasram aged 72 years, son of Saharu, Resident of village – Chandipara, tahsil Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Hira Prasad aged 62 years, son of Govind Suryawanshi, resident of Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 2 – Chaitram Khattar aged 57 years, son of Tirithram Suryawanshi, Resident of Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 3 – Manharan Khunte, aged 47 years, son of Milan Suryawanshi, resident of Mehendi, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 4 – Bholaram Bhasker, aged 45 years son of Barnu, resident of Pendri, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 5 – Kanak Joshi, aged 47 years, son of Ojiyar Suryawanshi, resident of Pendri, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 6 – Jaipal Singh, aged 52 years, son of Mohitram, resident of Kodabhath, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) 7 – Shivdayal aged 57 years, son of Baliram Suryawanshi, resident of Pamgarh, District – Janjgir-Champa (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Judgment on Board 01/07/2026 Heard on admission. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the second appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 08/09/2017 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir- Champa in civil appeal No.61A/2016. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned District Judge dismissed the First Appeal of the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28/09/2016 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No.06A/10. 2. The parties are referred to herein by their status in the trial Court. Facts in nutshell is that the plaintiff filed a civil suit in respect of abadi land comprised in khasra No.683/2 area 0.03 situated at Pamgarh seeking relief of permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and damages. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was obtained by him through a bhumi swami lease. A decree in civil suit No.436(A)/20 (Hulasram v. D.K.Singh, Tahsildar, Pamgarh and ors.) was passed on 14/01/2002 holding him to be Bhumi Swami and patta holder of the suit land. As no appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree, confirmation of the bhumi swami right of the suit property was also made by the Commissioner, Bilaspur. When the plaintiff wanted to construct a house, Shri D.K.Singh, Tahsildar interfered in it alongwith one Chherku. Thereafter, a prohibitory order was issued by obtaining a decree of permanent injunction. The defendants got an unregistered committee in the name and style as Satnam Bhawan society and they are interfering in the construction of the plaintiff. It is also a case of the plaintiff that the defendants have forged the map of the suit property and position of khasra No.683/2 was changed and a complaint was made by the plaintiff against the defendants and the concerned patwari for interpolation and forging of the documents. Thus, the suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff. He also claimed damages. 3. Filing the written statement, the defendants denied the averments of the plaint and pleaded that the earlier judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.436A/2000 is not binding upon them as they are not party to it and it has been 3 stated that khasra No.683/2 is still recorded in the name of Government in the revenue records and they have never interfered in construction of the plaintiff in khasra No.683/2. It has also been denied that in order to construct a house, foundation has been laid down by the plaintiff. The Satnam Bhawan of the defendants was constructed 10-15 years back for which the plaintiff wants to encroach upon it. 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings, issues were framed, parties led the evidence and learned trial Court decided the same. The suit was dismissed, against which, an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of the suit property, declaratory decree has already been passed by a competent civil Court in the year 2000 itself and as it remained unchallenged, the plaintiff is the title holder and has also been granted bhumi swami rights by the Commissioner. It has been further argued that as the plaintiff is the title holder and wanted to raise the construction of his house, it was objected and interfered by the defendants. Thus, only a suit for injunction was filed and the plaintiff was able to prove the factum of his possession and the suit property. Even then learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit which has been affirmed by the 1st appellate Court. He further submits that the basis of judgment of the Civil Judge as well as the District Judge is the demarcation report which cannot be relied upon to pass such a decree. Thus, the proposed substantial question of law in the memo of appeal have been formulated and the appeal may be admitted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. The disputed property is in piece of khasra No.683/2 area 0.03 hectare. The suit was filed only for permanent injunction and damages. In order to obtain a decree of permanent injunction and damages, the plaintiff is required to establish that he is in possession of the suit property. Even if the decree of declaration is in favour of the plaintiff earlier, that itself would not mean that he is in possession of the suit property and in his suit property, disturbance has been created by the defendants. When there was a dispute with regard to the identity of the land, learned Civil Court issued a writ of commission to ascertain the factual finding. 4 The report was submitted by the Commissioner which was not objected by the counsel for the appellant. Learned 1st appellate Court placed reliance upon the Commissioner’s report dated 01/04/2013. It has been observed in the report that the concerned Tahsildar went to the place for inspection and did not find that any foundation stone was kept in khasra No.683 and also gave categorical report that the plaintiff was never in possession of khasra No.683. Patwari map and spot map are also annexed with the report which also envisage that the property situated at khasra No.683/2 obtained by the plaintiff in patta, there are houses of other persons constructed, there is a way and there is a drainage. There is no vacant plot on the spot. The old Satnami building and new satnami building are also constructed in khasra No.683/1 and khasra No.685/2 and the map annexed with the plaint as DEF is not in accordance with the Commissioner’s report. The finding has also been recorded in the report that no foundation has been made in khasra No.683/2. The 1st appellate Court also gave a finding that when there is no foundation stone in khasra No.683/2, there cannot be any question of interfering in the possession. An allegation was also leveled that there was interpolation in the map, however, no evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove the same. Learned Civil Judge as well as the 1st appellate Court gave a finding that plaintiff could not prove that the defendants are restraining the plaintiff in making construction in khasra No.683/2. The possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property has not been found proved by the Civil Judge as well as the 1st appellate Court. It also gave a finding that no construction is going on in the suit property i.e. khasra No.683/2. This is a finding of fact recorded by the learned Civil Judge as well as by the 1st appellate Court. The finding of fact so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the records particularly when the Commissioner’s report which has been accepted by the plaintiff speaks otherwise. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which is sine qua non for admitting an appeal under Section 100 of CPC. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Decree be drawn. No cost. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.07.03 15:37:20 +0530