2026:CGHC:25736 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 211 of 2016 Yogendra Agrawal, S/o Late Prahlad Agrawal, aged about 75 years, R/o Village Gandai Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ................Cross-Appellant/ Respondent, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus 1 - Jeevandas Ratrey, S/o Late Jeetandas Ratrey, aged about 49 years, R/o Village Gandai Tahsil Chhuikhadan District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ................Plaintiff 2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 /State : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 06.08.2026 1. By filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’), the appellant has assailed the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.02/2012. By the judgment impugned and decree learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the First Appeal of the defendant No.1 filed under section 96 of the CPC and affirmed the judgment and ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.14 14:59:36 +0530 -2- decree dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned II Civil Judge Class – II (for short “Civil Judge”), Chhuikhadan, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 56-A/2008. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial court. 3. Respondent No.1 the plaintiff filed a suit before the Civil Judge Class-II, Chhuikhadan, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) against the present appellant/defendant. The suit property property was comprised in piece of khasra No. 293 area 0.56 acres situated at Village Gandai, P.H. No.12, R.I.C., Tehsil Chhuikhadan (C.G.). The property was properly described in schedule ‘A’ attached to the plaint. Out of the said property, the dispute is in respect of only 0.10 acres of land. The plaintiff sought a declaration of title in respect of the suit property and a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with his possession. 4. As per pleading of the plaint, the plaintiff is in possession and occupation of 0.19 acres of land out of the 0.56 acres comprised in khasra No.293 as Bhumiswami since the year 1950. Out of the total area of 0.19 acres, a residential house has been constructed since the time of their forefathers, while the remaining 0.09 acres is being used as courtyard (Nistari), etc. Defendant No.1 is said to have purchased the said land on 22.03.1973 from Smt. Devkunvar Bai widow of Lokwa, from Budki Bai widow of Kartik through registered sale deed on 02.03.1984 and from Pusav son of Phoolsingh Satnami on 07.05.1973. Defendant submitted an application under section 250 of the Land Revenue Code,1959 (for short “LRC”) in the Court of Additional Tehsildaar – Gandai for taking possession from -3- the plaintiff’s which was going on since the time of ancestors. It is stated that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property, rather, his forefathers were in continuous possession thereof. Thus, the present suit was filed. 5. The defendant filed a written statement and objected that out of total 0.56 decimal of populated land in 0.21 decimal a house has been constructed which was purchased by him on 30.05.1972 by a registered sale deed and there he obtained the possession. Likewise, the grandfather of the plaintiff on 07.08.1973 purchased a kaccha house and obtained the possession. Budki Bai sold 0.3 decimal of land to the brother of defendant No.1 Kailash Chandra Agrawal, on 22.03.1973 Devkunwar Bai sold he house and land to defendant No.1 and his brother and then grand father of the plaintiff sold his house to defendant and his brother on 30.05.1972.Since then defendant No.1 is in possession thereof. It has been further pleaded that after 33 years, the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and his brothers has been challenged by the plaintiff. In connivance with the Halka Patwari by illegal means, a spot map was prepared and therefore the plaintiff cannot become the owner of the suit property. The defendant No.1 has made complaint to the higher officials against the Halka Patwari and upon the inquiry report, the spot map was declared null and void and departmental inquiry was recommended him. Thus prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.2 remained exparte. 7. On the basis of above broad pleadings following issues have been framed: -4- कक द न नक 1 D;k EkkStk Xkzke x.MbZ Ik g u 12 rglhy- NqbZ[knku esa fLFkr oknHkwfe [kl 293 रक 0-10 ,dM ftls vuqlwPkh v esa n’kkZ;k x;k gS ij lu 1950 ls okjh o mlds iwoZtks dk vkf/kiR; pyk vk jgk gS ? “Ikzekf.kr ugh S” 2 D;k izfroknh dza1 कथन esa nf’kZrk utjh uD’kk ds okn Hkwfe dks nsodqoj CkkbZ Ckqndh CkkbZ iqlm lrukekh ls izfroknh dza dze dj iathd`r cZekuk ls lu~ 1972&73 ls dkfct gS\ Ikzekf.kr ugh 3 D;k okn dk ewY;kadu 5]08]000@:i;s gS\ ugh S 4 D;k okn dk le; ckf/kr gS \ ugha 5 lgk;rk ,oa oknO;; mHk;i{k viuk viuk okn O;; ogu djsa vfrfjDRk okn iz’u 6 D;k oknh okn Hkwfe dk Lokeh gS \ Sizekf.kr ugha S 7 D;k oknh izfroknh dza 1 dks oknHkwfe ij veyn[ky ls jksdus gsrq izfroknh dza 1 ds fo:/n LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ SSizekf.kr ugha S 8. In order to prove his pleadings, the plaintiff examined four witnesses whereas defendant examined two witnesses. 9. Learned trial court after due appreciation of evidence available on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Against which, the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned Upper District Judge, Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). The appeal filed by the plaintiff was registered is 13A/20212 whereas the appeal filed by the defendant No.1 was registered as 02/2005. The appeal of the defendant No.1 was against the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge on the issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 whereas the appeal filed by the plaintiff was against all the issues. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment decree date 30.01.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the -5- plaintiff as well as defendant No.1. 10.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge which has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge. Issue No.1 with respect to declaration of the possession of the suit property was held as not proved. Issue No.2 with respect to the fact that after purchasing the land from Budki Bai, Smt. Devkunvar Bai and Pusav, defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit property since 1972-73, has been found to be proved. He submits that once it has been held by the learned Civil Judge that the suit property was purchased by the forefathers of the defendant No.1, naturally their possession is required to be protected and thus the issues was decided wrongly. Apart from this, it is submitted that the issue Nos. 3 and 4 were also decided against the defendant No.1 which has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court and it requires interference by this Court. He submits that the evidence available on record would suggest that the plaintiff was unable to prove his case for possession on the suit property and the plaintiffs again proved the case of his possession on the basis of the sale-deed executed in favour of their forefathers. The issue No.2,3 and 4 ought to have been decided in favour of the defendant No.1. Thus he submits that the substantial question of law which have been proposed in the memo of appeal arises for consideration before this Court. The appeal may be admitted on such substantial question of law. 11.The substantial question of law which has been proposed by the appellants are quoted here-in-below:- “1.Whether both the court below justified in -6- discarding the evidence adduce by the appellant herein regarding his possession over the land in dispute which is supported by documentary as well as oral evidence. 2. Whether both the court below committed error by negatived the issue regarding under valuation of suit by the appellant by ignoring the provision of valuation Act of 1887? 3.Whether the suit was barred by limitation because the suit has been preferred after 33 years from the date of execution of sale deed?” 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dispute is between the private parties. 13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 14. The dispute is in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff is claiming his title and possession of the suit property for which the issue No.1 was framed which was held to be not proved. This finding of the Civil Judge which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court does not appear to be assailed by the plaintiff in this appeal. The defendant No.1 in sum and substance is aggrieved by the issue No.2 with respect to possession of the suit property by the defendant No.1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / defendant No.1, the suit property was purchased by the forefathers of the defendant No.1 and they are still in possession by virtue of the sale deed executed in the year 1972-73 by the different persons. The finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge is absolutely unjustified and perverse to the record. In this context, the finding of the Civil Judge -7- appears to be based on due appreciation of evidence. The record would further suggest that the learned Civil Judge has categorically held that in light of the registered sale-deed executed in respect of the suit property in favour of the forefather of the defendant No.1, the title of the plaintiff is not proved. So far as the issue No.2 with regard to possession of the suit property is concerned, the defendant No.1/appellant is claiming that the issue No. 2 ought to have been decided in his favour holding his possession over the suit property. Perusal of record would indicate that defendant No.1 himself has moved an application under section 250 of the LRC which was marked as Ex.P-3. After perusing the EX.P-3, the learned Civil Judge found that the possession of the defendant No.1 was not in the suit property. The documents which have been available on record clearly show that the plaintiff wanted to seek the decree of declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. The learned Civil Judge is also found that in light of the sale-deed having being executed in favour of the forefather of the defendant No.1 and no relief of cancellation of those sale-deeds have been claimed and merely on the basis of possession of declaration of title cannot be made in favour of the plaintiff. Thus in categorically term on the assessment of evidence available on record, the learned Civil Judge found that plaintiff was in possession and not the defendant No.1. Thus in the opinion of the Court, the finding so recorded on issue No.2 as affirmed by the First Appellate Court is essentially a finding of fact and does not require any interference by this Court. The other submission made is that proper valuation of the suit was not done by the plaintiff and the suit was barred by limitation. -8- Even arguendo, if it is assumed that the finding of the issue Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to limitation is wrong, it is not going to make any difference as the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge and his appeal against such judgment was also dismissed. So no benefit would be derived to the plaintiff even the issue Nos. 3 and 4 are decided in his favour. 15. Thus in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & 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. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved which is sine qua non for admitting the second appeal. The present appeal thus sans merit and is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. 17.Decree be drawn accordingly. -Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish