1 CGHC010218252018 2026:CGHC:37217 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 428 of 2018 • Dhruvnath Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramanuj Prasad Tiwari Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Mahora, Police Station Patan, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Disrtict- Korea, Chhattisgarh.....(Plaintiff), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Collector Korea, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh......(Defendants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2. Gram Panchayat Mahora Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Mahora, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3. Ravidranath Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramanuj Prasad Tiwari Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Mahora, Police Station Patan, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Disrtict- Korea, Chhattisgarh......(Plaintiff No.1b), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Deputy G.A. DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Korea (Baikunthpur), District Korea (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.02A/2018, whereby the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure-A/2) passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12A/2015, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction. (The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter, as per their description before the trial Court). 3. The appellant, who is the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No.350 area 0.037 hectare and Khasra No.368 area 0.45 hectare situated in Village Mahora, P.H. No.17, R.N.M. Patna, District Korea (C.G.). According to the revenue records, the suit property is unoccupied land. 3 4. As per the pleadings, the suit property is recorded in revenue records as unoccupied land. The suit property comprised in piece of Khasra No.350 area 0.037 hectare from the time of princely state, which was a plateau and mountain restricted property, which was not usable for cultivation. The ancestral of the plaintiff have developed the said suit property and planted trees upon it and continued to take care of the same, however, many of the trees have fallen down and few of them are left. After abolition of the property rights, the Gram Panchayat Mahora, i.e., defendant No.2 restrained the plaintiff to take the fruits from the said trees, which were upon the said suit property. Later on, the plaintiff has moved an application before the Tehsildar, Baikunthpur, which was denied. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the Collector, Surguja (C.G.), which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar, Baikunthpur, however, without conducting any enquiry, the same was dismissed by the concerned Tehsildar. An appeal having being preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur, is still pending consideration. During the pendency of the appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur, defendant No.2 started digging the foundation over the suit property, comprised in the piece of Khasra No.350 area 0.037 hectare. Defendant No.1 never delivered the title and possession to the defendant No.2, as the trees containing fruits are standing over the suit property. When the defendant No.2 started construction over the suit property, 4 then the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the CPC, however, defendant No.1 has not further proceeded on the said notice. The cause of action arose in the month of October, 2006 and thus, the suit along with above stated relief was filed. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and denied the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. It was pleaded that natural trees have grown up over the Khasra No.350 and Khasra No.368. It was never planted by the ancestral of the plaintiff and the said suit property is a government land, which was preserved under land revenue code. Hence, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and defendant No.2 remained ex parte. 6. Plaintiff examined as many as 5 witnesses, whereas defendant No.1 did not examined any of the witnesses. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination :- (i) Whether the plaintiffs have the right to harvest fruit from the fruit- bearing trees situated on the land Khasra No. 350, area 0.037 Acres located in Village Mahora? “Not Proved” (ii) Whether the defendants be restrained from carrying out any construction or activity on the said land? “No” (iii) Relief and costs. “The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed in accordance with paragraph 16 of the judgment.” 5 8. After assessment of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate Court, which was also dismissed, which led to file the instant second appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the learned first appellate Court are perverse, contrary to the evidence and bad in law. He further submits that the suit property was not usable for cultivation, which was developed by the forefathers of the plaintiff by planting fruit trees over it and took care of the same for time immemorial, thus, they were entitled to take the benefits of the same. The defendant No.2 has not filed any written statement. Thus, the evidence led by the plaintiff is unrebutted and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court based on such unrebutted testimony of the plaintiff cannot be sustained. Thus, the above mentioned substantial questions of law, which have been framed in the memo of appeal, arises for consideration before this Court, therefore, the instant second appeal may be admitted. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was affirmed by the first appellate Court. 6 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. The crux of the case appears from the pleadings of the record is that according to the plaintiff, the suit property was a plateau and mountain property and was not usable for cultivation, which was developed by the plaintiff’s forefathers by planting fruit trees and they have been taking care of the trees for time immemorial. When the defendant No.2 started digging the foundation for constructions of some residential house, the objection was raised by the plaintiff and ultimately the suit was filed before the learned trial Court and some revenue proceedings were also drawn regarding it. 13. The learned trial Court on assessment of evidence, in paragraph 16 of the judgment came to a conclusion that there is no evidence available on record that the said suit property is the property of the forefathers of the plaintiff. A categorical finding was also given by the learned trial Court that no document was available on record, which shows that any permission was granted to the forefathers of the plaintiff for planting fruit trees over the suit property. 14. The learned trial Court has also observed that the suit property is a government land and even then, they have planted the fruit trees over the suit property, it does not appear that such plantation was on account of some permission granted by the competent 7 authority. Simply planting trees, it does not create any right in favour of the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title over the suit property. 15. Apart from this, the learned trial Court has also recorded that for development, defendant No.2 cannot be restrained from constructing the necessary official residence. 16. It is not a case that plaintiff is seeking declaration of title from the adverse possession. The case of plaintiff is simply appears to be that his forefathers have developed the suit property by planting trees and took care of the same for time immemorial and when their possession was interfered, they filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 17. In light of the above, the findings were recorded by the learned trial Court, the same was affirmed by the learned first appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff does not appeal to this Court, particularly when admittedly, it was recorded that suit property is a government land in revenue records. No other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 18. 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 sin qua non as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. Versus Century 8 Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Others Versus Saraswati & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. In the present case, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration. 19. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 20. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha