1 CGHC010109872019 2026:CGHC:28071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 253 of 2019 1 - Bhagiram S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramchandra S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Khemu S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 4 - Balkaran S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sitaram S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 41 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Panchobai D/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 44 Years Smt. Shaymbai Wd/o Late Shri Keshlal, Aged About 72 Years, --------Since Died , R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.07.16 18:27:09 +0530 2 versus 1 - Smt. Lokinbai Wd/o Late Shri Keshoram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Khilora, Present R/o Village - Jano, Tahsil - Saja , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Shri Bhikhari, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Renuka Bai D/o Shri Lisakram Dhurve, Aged About 11 Years Minor, Through Her Legal Guardian I.E. Mother Kumari Bai W/o Bisuk Gond, R/o Village - Chhitabadi, Tahsil - Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Bipat S/o Late Shri Keshlal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Khairi, Police Station Tahsil - Saja District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff No. 4), District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Shri Raza Ali, Advocate For State : Shri Narayan Prasad, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 07/07/2026 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 3 appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2019 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No.57A of 2018. By this judgment, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 96 of the CPC and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.4.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.71A of 2009 by the Civil Judge Class II, Saja, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh). 3. The appellants who happen to be the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property which is properly described in Schedule B of the plaint. 4. It is an admitted fact that the parties are Hindu and Gond by caste. They are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. 5. The parties are referred to herein as per their status before the Trial Court. 6. As per pleadings of the plaint, the suit property which was described in Schedule A of the plaint, situated at Village Khairi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, is an agricultural land of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The property was jointly held by Keshlal, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 7 and husband of plaintiff No.8. According to the plaint, Keshoram was married with one Pawanbai. Pawanbai and Keshoram have passed away intestate. Defendant No.1, Lokinbai recorded her name in the revenue 4 records in respect of the suit property after death of Keshoram on the basis of her being the second wife and a will deed executed in her favour. 7. When this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, an appeal was preferred by them before the Sub Divisional Officer, Saja that the mutation in the suit property in the name of defendant No.1 is without finding of fact in respect of the will deed. Defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of Keshoram. Despite of the will deed having not been proved, the mutation proceedings have been drawn. Thus, a suit seeking the above stated relief was filed. 8. The plaint was resisted by the defendants by filing their written statement. It was plead that initially the ancestors of Keshlal and Keshoram were having 9.89 hectares of land mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint which was already partitioned amongst them and thus the property as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint area 5.57 hectares was received by Keshoram in partition. Keshlal had no right or title over the said property. During the lifetime of Keshoram, he executed a registered sale deed and after his death, defendant No.1 has rightly recorded her name in the revenue records. During the lifetime of Keshoram, 0.04 hectare of land was sold to Bhikhari, son of Chherku, 0.47 hectare of land was sold to Lokinbai, 0.30 hectare of land was sold to Janukram and 0.40 hectare of land was sold to Ramodi and they are in possession of the that property. The suit property is presently recorded in the name of defendant No.2 Smt. Savitri 5 Bai and the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.1 Smt. Lokinbai is legally wedded wife of Keshoram as she was brought by him as his wife. Thus, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues: क्रमांक वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष 01 क्या के शो एवं के शलाल के मध्य भूनिम का निवभाज हुआ था ? "हाँ" 02 क्या वादीगण परि%शिशष्ट "ब" में दर्शिशत भूनिम के एक मात्र भूनिम स्वामी है ? "हीं" 03 क्या वादीगण परि%शिशष्ट "ब" में दर्शिशत भूनिम का कब्जा प्राप्त क%े की अधि5का%ी है ? "हीं" 04 क्या वादी में पक्षका%ों का असंयोज है, यनिद हाँ तो प्रभाव ? "हाँ" 05 क्या वादीगण के पक्ष में प्रधितवादीगण के निवरूद्ध स्थाई निर्षे5ाज्ञा प्रदा निकया जा सकता है ? "हीं" 06 सहायता एवं वाद व्यय निणय की अंधितम कं धि>का के अुसा% नि%ाकृ त अधितरि%क्त वाद प्रश्न 07 क्या वाद भूनिम में से खस%ा . 91/1 खस%ा .418/1 %कबा क्रमशः 0.90, 0.43 हे. कु ल खस%ा .2 %कबा 1.33 हे. भूनिम प्रधितवादी क्र.4 द्वा%ा निवधि5वत क्रय की गयी है? "हाँ" 9. The respective parties led their evidence to prove their case. The Trial Court after assessment of the material available decided the issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The first appeal was also dismissed by 6 the First Appellate Court. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in respect of issues No.1 and 2 are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. From the evidence so gathered, it is quite apparent that the husband of defendant No.1 was alive at the time when she started living with late Keshoram. There was no marriage among them. Thus, the finding in respect to the fact that defendant No.1, Lokinbai was legally wedded wife of Keshoram is perverse. He further submits that though the suit property was bequeathed by late Keshoram by way of registered sale-deed in favour of Lokinbai and the same was challenged by the plaintiffs, however, the will deed was not proved in accordance with law as the same was disputed by the plaintiffs and even in absence of challenge to the will, the suit for declaration of title by the plaintiffs was maintainable. Thus, the finding of the learned Trial Court affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court that the plaintiffs have not challenged the validity of the will deed executed, does not hold water. He further submits that once it is proved that Keshoram died intestate and the plaintiffs being the sons, daughter and wife of his brother Keshlal, they fall within the category of Class II legal heirs and in absence of any other Class I legal heirs, they are entitled for declaration of their title over the suit property of late Keshoram. Thus, he submits that the substantial question of law which has been proposed in the memo of appeal arises for consideration before admission of this appeal and the appeal 7 may be admitted on the substantial question of law and notice may be issued to the respondents. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with due care. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the factum of proof of marriage between late Lokinbai and Keshoram has not been established. Though no specific issue has been framed in this regard, however, issue No.2 has been framed for declaration of title over the suit property. This includes the submission which has been put forth by learned counsel for the appellants as to whether there was a valid marriage among Keshoram and Lokinbai or not. While deciding this issue, the learned Trial Court observed that according to the defendants the parties are of Hagru Gond Caste and they follow the customs of Gond Caste. According to their customs, they can have more than one wife and the second wife also had equal right in the property of the husband. The learned Civil Judge has also discussed the evidence of the independent witness and previous husband of Lokinbai. However, even assuming arguendo that the marriage between Lokinbai and Keshoram was not valid. There is a will deed executed which is marked as Ex.D1. Ex.D1 is a will deed which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, District Durg. There is no dispute to the fact that deceased Keshoram died intestate and his first wife has passed away. The attesting witness of the will deed has already passed away. In order to prove the same, the clerk of the Registration Office was 8 examined, who has proved the fact that the will deed was executed and was duly registered in the Registration Office. Submission is made that even if the challenge has not been made to the will, the plaintiffs are entitled to seek declaration of title over the suit property. This Court is not persuaded with the submission. From the pleadings, it appears that they were aware of the fact that a will deed was executed by deceased Keshoram in favour of defendant No.1. The will deed is a registered document which has been proved by the witness of the Registrar Office. Apart from this, from perusal of the statements of the plaintiffs it appears that they have admitted the fact that they have not challenged the validity of the will deed. 13. The plaintiffs in order to seek a decree of declaration of title and possession of the suit property were required to prove that they have interest and right over the suit property. 14. Issue No.1 was in respect of partition among the brothers. Admittedly, the suit property was initially belonged to the ancestors of the two brothers, namely, Keshoram and Keshlal and their partition had taken place and certain portion of the property fell into share of Keshoram and which has been further bequeathed by him in favour of Lokinbai. Issues No.1 and 2 are related to finding of fact. The finding so recoded was based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and duly affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiffs/appellants failed to prove that they are entitled for declaration of title, the learned Trial Court also decided the other issues against them. The 9 finding so recorded by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court appears to be based upon the evidence on record. 15. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sir Chunnilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Centuary Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and Chandrabhan (Deceased) through LRs. and others v. Saraswati and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is found to be involved entailing admission of this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. 17. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Gopal