1 CGHC010437452024 2026:CGHC:36919- DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 247 of 2024 1 - Rakesh Ku. Rathore S/o Shri Nohar Lal Rathore Aged About 44 Years R/o Sakti Vihar Colony, Behind Dream Land Ward 54, Sarkanda, Tah. Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Jaimantri Bai W/o Shri Nohar Lal Rathore Aged About 66 Years R/o Sakti Vihar Colony, Behind Dream Land Ward 54, Sarkanda, Tah. Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Rathore W/o Rajesh Kumar Aged About 40 Years R/o Sakti Vihar Colony, Behind Dream Land Ward 54, Sarkanda, Tah. Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District- Collector, Distt- Bilaspur ( C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,JJ PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.08.21 10:52:44 +0530 2 Judgment on Board 18/08/2026 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. The appellants have invoked the first appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short, “the learned District Judge”) in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 2021. 2. The appellants are defendant Nos. 1 and 2, whereas respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. The parties are hereinafter be referred to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. 3. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property comprises land bearing Khasra Nos. 371/32 and 372/34, admeasuring 1900 sq. ft. in total, situated at Ward No. 54, Arvind Nagar, behind Sarkanda Dream Land School, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. A residential house has been constructed over a portion measuring 1450 sq. ft., consisting of ground and first floors. The plaintiff claims ownership over the suit property on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 28.03.2018 executed in her favour by her father-in-law, Noharlal, who had purchased the property from his self- acquired funds. Her name was thereafter mutated in the revenue records. It is pleaded that defendant No.1, the plaintiff's brother-in-law, and defendant No.2, her mother-in-law, were permitted to reside in the first floor temporarily. Subsequently, they allegedly refused to vacate the premises and started threatening and quarreling with the plaintiff and her family members with an intention to usurp the property. A legal notice dated 01.06.2020 was issued calling upon them to vacate the premises, but the notice was returned unserved. The plaintiff also lodged a complaint before 3 Police Station Sarkanda on 03.06.2020, but no action was taken. Defendant No.3 was impleaded as a formal party. On the aforesaid averments, alleging that the cause of action arose on 03.06.2020 and continued thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking appropriate relief against the defendants. Since the suit property is situated within Ward No.54, Bilaspur, and the defendants are also residing at Bilaspur, the learned trial Court was stated to have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Defendants No.1 and 2, in their written statement, have denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that the suit property was purchased on 06.05.2005 by Shri Nohar Lal Rathore, father of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 contributed Rs.50,000/- and his sister, Smt. Vimla Rathore, contributed Rs.1,00,000/- towards the purchase consideration. Defendant No.2 also contributed Rs.1,70,000/- out of the sale proceeds of her self-acquired land at Takarkala, Gaurela-Pendra, towards construction of the house over the suit property. Accordingly, they claim right and share therein. It is further pleaded that defendant No.1 constructed the first floor of the house, obtained electricity and water connections in his name and has been residing therein. The plaintiff, without their knowledge, allegedly got a gift deed executed in respect of the suit property and mutated her name in the revenue records and thereafter attempted to dispossess defendants No.1 and 2. They further pleaded that the plaintiff has been making false complaints before the police with a view to oust them from the suit property. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the suit is not maintainable against the State of Chhattisgarh for want of the mandatory statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 4 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Issue Conclusion Whether the suit property, comprising Khasra Nos. 371/32 and 372/34, admeasuring 1900 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 54, Arvind Nagar, Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, was the self-acquired property of Shri Nohar Lal Rathore, father-in-law of the plaintiff? Proved Whether Shri Nohar Lal Rathore, father-in-law of the plaintiff, had transferred possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by way of a registered gift deed dated 28.03.2018? Proved Whether the registered gift deed dated 28.03.2018 executed by Shri Nohar Lal Rathore in favour of the plaintiff is a valid and legally enforceable document? Proved Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 28.03.2018? Proved Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 have illegally occupied and are residing in the house constructed over the suit property? Proved Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the house constructed over the suit property from defendants No. 1 and 2? Proved Relief and costs In accordance with paragraph 20 of the judgment. 6. The plaintiff, in support of her case, examined herself as P.W-2 and also examined Nohar Lal Rathore as P.W.- 1 and Chhedilal Rathore as P.W. – 3 whereas the defendants examined Smt. Jaymantri as D.W. - 1 and 5 Rakesh Rathore as D.W. – 2. 7. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and, accordingly, passed the following order: I. The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed in the following terms: II. It is held that Nohar Lal Rathore duly gifted the suit property, being his self-acquired property, in favour of the plaintiff by way of a registered Gift Deed dated 28.03.2018. III. The plaintiff is held to be the sole owner of the suit property on the strength of the registered Gift Deed dated 28.03.2018. IV. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover vacant possession of the house constructed over the suit property from defendant Nos. 1 and 2. V. The advocate's fee, as certified or as per the schedule, whichever is less, shall be included in the costs of the suit. VI. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present first appeal has been preferred before this Court. 8. (a) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the defendants and erred in holding that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Nohar Lal Rathore. According to the appellants, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit land was purchased by Nohar Lal Rathore with the financial assistance of defendant No.1 and that the house standing thereon was also constructed with his financial contribution. (b) Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court failed to consider the material admissions made by the parties while deciding Issue 6 No.1 and also overlooked the evidence showing that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had been residing in the suit property from the inception of construction of the house and continued to remain in possession thereof. It is, therefore, contended that the finding granting the plaintiff possession of the entire suit property is perverse and unsupported by the evidence on record. (c) It is further submitted that the alleged registered Gift Deed dated 28.03.2018 was not duly proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. The plaintiff failed to establish its due execution by examining the attesting witness, and therefore, the said document could not have been relied upon for holding that title had validly passed in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issues No.3 and 4 are legally unsustainable. (d) Learned counsel also submits that the defendants had established their lawful and continuous possession over the suit property and, therefore, their possession could not have been treated as illegal. The findings recorded by the Trial Court on Issues No.5 and 6 are thus contrary to the evidence available on record. It is lastly submitted that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving her case as well as the validity and execution of the alleged Gift Deed. The impugned judgment and decree, having been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and settled principles of law, deserve to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supports the impugned judgment and decree. He submits that, on the basis of cogent and prudent evidence, the plaintiff has duly proved the issues which have rightly been decided in his favour. He further submits that the suit property was gifted by the plaintiff’s father-in-law who himself appeared before the learned Trial Court and deposed in support of the plaintiff’s case. It is further submitted that defendant No. 2 was living separately from the plaintiff’s father-in-law and had received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final 7 settlement of her maintenance claim. He further submits that the defence set up by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 regarding their contribution towards the purchase of the suit property and construction of the first floor has not been established by any cogent and prudent evidence. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment and decree does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and that the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the State submits that the dispute with regard to the suit property is essentially a private dispute between the appellants and the private respondent, and the State has no substantive role to play in the adjudication of the present matter. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and duly considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar. 12. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court can withstand scrutiny in the present appeal. In support of his case, Nohar Lal Rathore was examined as PW-1. In his affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he deposed that he knew the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2; that the plaintiff was his daughter-in-law, defendant No. 1 was his younger son, and defendant No. 2 was his wife. He further deposed that the suit property bearing Khasra Nos. 371/32 and 372/34, admeasuring 1,900 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 54, Arvind Nagar, behind Sarkanda Dream Land School, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, was purchased by him from Sahdev Kashyap out of his self-acquired funds, and that he had constructed a residential house thereon. He stated that, being the owner of the property, he executed a registered Gift Deed dated 28.03.2018 in favour of the plaintiff, being satisfied with the care and services rendered by her, and handed over possession to her. He further stated that thereafter her name was recorded in the revenue records. He 8 also deposed that he had provided a plot at Ashok Nagar and a medical store to defendant No. 1, which was subsequently sold by him, and had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant No. 2 towards her maintenance. According to him, owing to the proper care rendered by the plaintiff and the misbehaviour and ill-treatment meted out to him by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, he transferred his self-acquired property in favour of the plaintiff, who thereby became its exclusive owner. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that defendant No. 1 was his younger son and defendant No. 2 was his wife and that the suit property situated at Arvind Nagar, Sarkanda, had been purchased by him in the year 2005. He denied that defendant No. 1 had contributed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards its purchase. He stated that defendant No. 1 was running a medical store at Rajkishore Nagar, which had been established by him, and that he had also purchased 5 decimals of land at Ashok Nagar for defendant No. 1. He denied that the said land had been purchased from defendant No. 1's own earnings or that the sale proceeds thereof had been paid to him towards construction of the house. He admitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were presently residing in the suit property, but denied having permitted them to reside therein. He further denied that the first floor had been constructed by defendant No. 1 at his own expense and stated that the same had been constructed by him at his own expense. He denied that defendant No. 1 used to contribute his earnings to him and also denied that his daughter, Vimla Rathore, had contributed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the purchase of the suit property or had any share therein. He maintained that the suit property was his self-acquired property, purchased out of his earnings while he was employed at BALCO, and denied any contribution towards its purchase by any family member. He admitted that he had disputes with his wife, defendant No. 2, and was living separately from her, but denied that she had contributed towards the purchase of the suit property or that she had 9 been deprived of any share therein on account of such disputes. He stated that his wife had received a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards maintenance, though no document in support thereof had been produced. He denied that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were taking care of him and stated that he was being looked after by Rajesh, the husband of the plaintiff. He further denied that the Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff had been executed on account of his affection for Rajesh or at his instance. Significantly, the witness admitted that he had neither issued any legal notice to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 nor initiated any proceedings for their eviction from the suit property. 13. Mamta Rathore (PW-2) and Chedi Lal Rathore (PW-3) were also examined. Both these witnesses supported the testimony of Nohar Lal Rathore (PW-1) and deposed substantially in conformity with his version. 14. In support of her case, the appellant/defendant No.2, namely Jaimantri Bai, examined herself as DW-1. In her affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, she deposed that her husband, Nohar Lal Rathore, had purchased the suit land bearing Khasra Nos.371/32 and 372/34, admeasuring 1900 square feet, on 06.05.2005, with financial contributions of Rs.50,000/- by defendant No.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- by Vimla Rathore. She further deposed that the ground floor was constructed from Rs.1,70,000/- realised by sale of the land given to her by her father, while the first floor was constructed by defendant No.1, Rakesh Rathore, from his own earnings, who also obtained electricity and water connections in his name. According to her, the suit property was thus acquired and constructed with the contribution of the family members, whereas the plaintiff had made no contribution thereto. She alleged that the plaintiff, by practicing fraud upon Nohar Lal Rathore, got the sale deed executed in her favour and clandestinely got her name mutated in the revenue records, despite living separately from her husband. She further 10 stated that the plaintiff had lodged several false complaints against defendant No.1, which were found baseless upon inquiry, and had instituted the present suit with an ulterior motive to harass the defendants and usurp the entire property. She accordingly contended that the plaintiff had no exclusive right, title or interest in the suit property, that the suit was based on false averments and was liable to be dismissed, besides being improperly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was illiterate, had not read her affidavit and did not remember its contents. She was unaware of the Khasra numbers of the suit land and could not explain their mention in her affidavit. She admitted that Vimla had neither appeared before the Court nor raised any objection, though she stated for the first time that Vimla had been prevented from doing so by her elder son. She admitted that Rakesh started a medical store in 2006, but could not state in whose name its licence stood or when the suit land was purchased. She further admitted having instituted maintenance proceedings against her husband while residing at Kalyan Ashram, Bilaspur, and that the affidavit executed by her bore her photograph. She admitted that she had never challenged the land recorded in the name of Nohar Lal Rathore or the subsequent mutation in the plaintiff's name before any competent authority. She also admitted that she had produced no document to establish that the Tikrakala land was received by her from her father, that it was joint family property, or that the first floor was constructed by defendant No.1. She denied knowledge of any complaint lodged by the plaintiff at Police Station Sarkanda and stated that any such assertion in her affidavit would be incorrect. She further admitted that she had never challenged the mutation in favour of the plaintiff and that the suit property presently stood recorded in the name of the plaintiff, Mamta Rathore. 15. The appellant/defendant No. 1, namely Rakesh Rathore (DW-2), was 11 also examined. He supported the testimony of Jaimantri Bai (DW-1) and deposed substantially in consonance with her version. 16. The evidence available on record demonstrates that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s father-in-law on 06.05.2005. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased from his own source of income, whereas defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that they had also contributed towards the purchase of the suit property and the subsequent construction of the house. The gift deed has been duly exhibited on record. The execution of the said gift deed cannot be disputed in view of the statement of the executant himself. Moreover, the gift deed is a registered instrument and appears to have been executed in accordance with the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The defence put forth by the defendants is that defendant No. 1 contributed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the purchase of the suit property and that he was also working in a medical store. However, there is no document available on record to establish that defendant No. 1 was running or otherwise engaged in any medical store business. Another defence raised by defendant No. 1 is that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was contributed by his sister, namely, Mamta Rathore. However, she was not examined to substantiate the same. Another defence raised by the defendants is that defendant No. 2 had contributed towards the construction of the house out of the sale proceeds received from the sale of her property. Ex. D-1 is the sale deed pertaining to the property situated at Gourela-Pendra, which was executed by defendant No. 2 in the year 2006. However, the said document, by itself, does not establish that the sale consideration received thereunder was utilized towards the construction of the house situated over the suit property. 17. Apart from the aforesaid, Nohar Lal, the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff, has stated that a maintenance case had been filed by defendant No. 2, wherein she received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards final 12 settlement of maintenance. Although this fact was denied by defendant No. 2, she admitted that she had filed a maintenance case against the respondent. The consistent case of the plaintiff from the very beginning has been that the suit property was purchased by his father-in-law from his own source of income. The father-in-law in his statement has stated that he was working in BALCO and that the suit property was purchased from his own earnings. It is also significant that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file any counter-claim seeking cancellation of the gift deed, a declaration that the gift deed was null and void, or a declaration of their title over the suit property. The learned Trial Court, after duly appreciating the evidence available on record, decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court, on the basis of the evidence discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff succeeded in proving the issues in his favour by cogent and reliable evidence. The defence raised by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to their alleged contribution towards the purchase of the suit property and construction of the house has not been established by cogent and reliable evidence. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Accordingly, no interference with the impugned judgment and decree is warranted. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 19. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Pawan