1 CGHC010145902019 2026:CGHC:27545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 362 of 2019 Mahesh Sahu S/o Ram Manohar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Merhuka, P. S. Gourela, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ......Plaintiff, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..........Defendant No. 1, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Schedule Tribe, Composite Building Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 03.07.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. This is an appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short “learned Appellate Court”). HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.10 17:34:15 +0530 2 4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (for short “learned Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 41-A/2016 was affirmed. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 678/1 (Kha), admeasuring 0.35 acre, situated at Village Dhanouli, PH No. 23, RIC Gaurela, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 24.05.2015. Thereafter, he constructed a mud house over a portion of the suit property and cultivated the remaining land by sowing crops such as sesame, soybean and lentils and planting mango trees. It is further pleaded that a Tribal Hostel, under the control of the Collector and being run by respondent No. 2 has been constructed over the suit property. The plaintiff objected to such unauthorized construction. Consequently, in order to safeguard his rights and protect his possession over the suit property, he instituted the present civil suit. 6. The respondents did not file any written statement nor did they adduce any evidence in support of their defence. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also came to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination. 1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 and persons acting under him from causing any obstruction or interference over the suit land, from constructing a boundary wall around the existing hostel and the under-construction school, “Not Proved.” 3 and from preventing any person from using the Dahri land shown in the site map as the main access road? 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land? “Not Proved.” 3.Relief and costs. “In view of the findings recorded in Paragraph No. 2, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.” 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit land? “Not proved” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that in the absence of any written statement or evidence on behalf of the respondents, the courts below erred in dismissing the suit. It is further submitted that the property lawfully owned by the appellant has been taken over by the respondents without authority of law. Therefore, the substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal deserve to be framed and the appeal merits admission. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 11. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming himself to be the lawful owner and title holder of the suit property. In support of his claim, he produced certain revenue records along with the registered sale deed (Ex. P/1). 12. While deciding Issue No. 1, the learned Trial Court categorically held that the plaintiff had failed to produce any document demonstrating that prior to the execution of the sale deed, the suit property stood recorded in the name of his 4 predecessor-in-title. The Trial Court also placed reliance upon the report of the Patwari (Ex. P/2) which indicated that no excavation or digging had been carried out over the suit property. The Trial Court further recorded a categorical finding that the property purchased by the plaintiff did not form part of Khasra No. 509. It was also observed that there was no material available on record to establish the title or ownership of the vendor who had purportedly conveyed the suit property to the plaintiff under the sale deed. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish either his title or his possession over the suit property. 13. The aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court were duly affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to bring additional evidence on record. The learned First Appellate Court, upon considering the demarcation report (Ex. P/4) found that the plaintiff was in possession of Khasra No. 509 and not of the suit property comprised in Khasra No. 678/1 (Kha) admeasuring 0.35 hectare. Consequently, the Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit property bearing Khasra No. 678/1 (Kha) admeasuring 0.35 hectare. The findings so recorded by both the courts below are findings of fact based upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 14. It is well settled that for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 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. Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. 5 Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H. Ansari