1 CGHC010090852023 2026:CGHC:28741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 161 of 2023 Santram Verma S/o. Bhagela Verma, Aged About 56 Years R/o. Ward No. 2, Manpur, Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetrara (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Mrs. Chaity Bai Wd/o. Bhagwani Kurmi, Aged About 78 Years R/o. Ward No. 2 Manpur Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Champa Bai, D/o. Late Bhagwani Kurmi, Aged About 42 Years R/o. Ward No. 2 Manpur Bemetara, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chameli Bai, D/o. Late Bhagwani Kurmi, W/o. Jethu Sahu, Aged About 53 Years R/o. Ward No. 16, Singhouri, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Kamla Bai, D/o. Late Bhagwani Kurmi, Aged About 55 Years R/o. Jiya, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Ramkali, Wd/o Late Kamlesh Kurmi, Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village Jiya, Post Jiya, Tahsil And District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Verma with Mr. Anju Verma, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 09.07.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.16 17:34:31 +0530 2 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 09.01.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 21-A/2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bemetara District- Bemetara, (C.G.) (for short “learned Appellate Court”). 4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) (for short “learned Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 86-A/2021 was affirmed. 5. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff who is the appellant herein, instituted a suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Khasra No. 1334/2 admeasuring 0.081 hectare situated at Village Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 27, Tahsil and District Bemetara (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff's father Bhagela had two brothers namely Bhagwani and Bhagwan. It is the plaintiff's case that the ancestral agricultural lands were partitioned amongst the three brothers about 40–45 years prior to the institution of the suit and in the said partition, the suit property bearing Khasra No. 1334/2 admeasuring 0.081 hectare along with land bearing Khasra No. 342/16, admeasuring 0.1540 hectare fell to the share of the plaintiff's father. Upon the death of his father, the plaintiff succeeded to the said properties by inheritance and has since remained in possession and cultivation thereof. It is further pleaded that during his lifetime, Bhagwani the father/husband of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 alienated the lands which had fallen to his share in the family partition, a portion of Khasra No. 1326/2 admeasuring 3 0.0370 hectare in favour of Anil Rohra and another portion of the same Khasra number, admeasuring 0.0720 hectare in favour of Dilip Rohra. Likewise, the legal heirs of the deceased Bhagwan also alienated the lands which had fallen to their share under the partition. According to the plaintiff, the suit property which had fallen to the share of his father has remained in his possession and cultivation ever since. It is further averred that as the plaintiff had been residing at Durg for the last 40 years and earning his livelihood by doing manual labour, he used to visit his native village from time to time for agricultural purposes. In the year 2019, upon obtaining copies of the revenue records, the plaintiff came to know that the suit property had been recorded in the name of the deceased Bhagwani. It is the plaintiff's specific case that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property and that the said revenue entry is illegal. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction. Hence, this second appeal. 6. The defendants failed to appear before the learned Trial Court. They were proceeded ex parte and did not file any written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination. 1. Whether the plaintiff, Sant Ram Verma, is entitled to a declaration of title in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1334/2, admeasuring 0.081 hectares, situated at Village Bemetara, Patwari Halka No. 27, Revenue Inspector Circle and Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara? “No” 2. Relief and costs. As per paragraph 6. 4 8. Upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court decided the issue against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, the present second appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff vehemently contended that although the defendants did not contest the suit and were proceeded ex parte, the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court erred in disbelieving the oral testimony adduced by the plaintiff. He submits that the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit solely on the ground that no documentary evidence regarding the alleged partition had been produced, without properly appreciating the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. He further submits that the evidence on record sufficiently established that the suit property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff's father in a family partition which had taken place about 40–45 years ago amongst the three brothers. He submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC has been filed seeking to produce additional evidence, revenue records pertaining to the years 1985–1989 and 1995-1999 which indicate that the names of all three brothers were recorded in respect of the suit property. He submits that the said documents constitute material evidence having a direct bearing on the controversy involved and deserve to be taken on record. Therefore, he prays that the substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal arise for consideration and the present second appeal deserves to be admitted. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6/State submits that the dispute is between the private parties. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have carefully perused the entire record with due care and circumspection. 5 12. The principal point for determination before the learned Trial Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree declaring his title over the suit property. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself and one Parma Bai (PW-2) both of whom sought to establish that a family partition had taken place approximately 45 years ago amongst the plaintiff's father and his two brothers whereby the suit property had fallen to the share of the plaintiff's father. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Trial Court found that except for the oral assertions of the plaintiff and his witness, no documentary evidence whatsoever had been produced to substantiate the alleged partition. Therefore, the learned Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his title to the suit property. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court that since the defendants had remained ex parte and had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal, the oral testimony of the plaintiff ought to have been accepted as sufficient proof of his claim. However, the submission cannot be accepted. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness or absence of the defence. Mere absence of contest by the defendants does not absolve the plaintiff of the burden of proving his title in accordance with law. In the considered opinion of this Court, the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record and cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the material available on record so as to warrant interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. The application preferred by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC also deserves to be rejected. The appellant has failed to satisfy any of the conditions prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for additional evidence at the appellate stage. Even otherwise, the photocopies of the revenue records sought to be produced including the relevant revenue entries do not by themselves, establish the alleged family partition or the plaintiff's title over the suit property. The proposed additional 6 evidence is, therefore, neither necessary nor essential for the just adjudication of the present appeal and would not have any material on the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 15. 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. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. 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 at the admission stage. 16. 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