1 2026:CGHC:15618 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 577 of 2025 Dashrath Lal S/o Late Keja Ram Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Bhawarmara, Post- Singhola, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Ghanshyam Gupta S/o Kishan Gopal Gupta Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Bhawarmara, Post- Singhola, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Sarpanch Village Panchayat Bhawarmara, Post- Singhola, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 06.04.2026 1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.04.07 10:50:49 +0530 2 CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 63A/2024 (Dashrath Lal & Ghanshyam & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 93A/2018 (Dashrath Lal & Ghanshyam & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff instituted a Civil suit seeking declaration of title over the property described in Schedule ‘A’ and a decree of permanent injunction pleading inter alia that pursuant to resolution No. 6 dated 10.10.2009 of the Gram Panchayat and order dated 12.11.2009, an abadi patta in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 696/1, Plot No. 113, admeasuring 2½ dismil, situated at Village Bhanwarmara, Patwari Halka No. 25, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, was granted in his favour. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession of the said land since the year 2000 and has constructed a kutcha house in the year 2002, where he resides and carries on his tailoring business. Out of the said land, the plaintiff has constructed a house over 330 sq. ft. and the remaining portion has been enclosed by a pakka 3 boundary wall. It is further pleaded that the mother of defendant No.1, namely Laxmibai, had also been granted abadi patta for 2½ dismil land in the same village; however, Laxmibai and defendant No.1 allegedly made unauthorized construction over an area measuring 47 × 48 feet. The plaintiff lodged complaints before the competent authorities in this regard, due to which defendant No.1 started harbouring animosity towards the plaintiff and has been attempting to dispossess him from the suit property with the help of members of the Gram Panchayat. It is further stated that on a complaint made by defendant No.1, a revenue case bearing No. 45-बी/131 for the year 2015–16 was initiated before the Naib Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon, which was decided by order dated 02.06.2017. 3. The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the patta relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. It is pleaded that upon a complaint made by defendant No.1, the matter was duly enquired into by the competent authorities and the Gram Sabha in its meeting dated 25.06.2014 cancelled the earlier Resolution No.6, by which the alleged patta had been granted, and also passed Resolution No.3 recommending action against the then Sarpanch. It is further pleaded that on the complaint of 4 defendant No.1, a revenue case bearing No.45-ब/121 for the year 2015–16 (Ghanshyam Gupta Vs. Dashrath Sahu) was registered before the Naib Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon and the matter was travelled to the Sub-Divisional Officer for appropriate decision. The Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 20.06.2017, upheld the resolution of the Gram Sabha cancelling the patta and directed initiation of encroachment proceedings against the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has illegally encroached upon Government land on the basis of a forged patta, whereas the mother of defendant No.1, Laxmibai, had been validly granted a patta by the Gram Panchayat and is in lawful possession thereof. On these grounds, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, held that though an Abadi Patta in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 696/1, Plot No. 113 admeasuring 2½ dismil situated at Village Bhanwarmara was issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Gram Panchayat, the material available on record, particularly the Gram Sabha resolution and the orders passed by the competent revenue authorities, established that the 5 said Patta had been issued in a fraudulent manner and was subsequently cancelled. The Court further observed that since the Patta forming the very basis of the plaintiff’s claim stood cancelled (Ex. D-5), the plaintiff failed to establish any lawful right, title or interest over the suit property. Consequently, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of declaration of title or permanent injunction. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 06.07.2024, 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, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that the appellant was granted an Abadi lease on 12.11.2009 by the competent authority, which establishes his right over the suit property, but the same has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below. It is further submitted that the said lease was cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, thereby violating 6 the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also argues that the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-compliance with Section 246 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 is erroneous and therefore the impugned judgments deserve to be set aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as also the learned First Appellate Court have been carefully examined. 8. The Lower Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any lawful right or title over the suit property. The Court observed that although the plaintiff relied upon an Abadi Patta dated 12.11.2009 allegedly issued pursuant to the Gram Panchayat resolution, the evidence adduced by the defendants, particularly the revenue records, encroachment report, Panchanama, eviction warrant and the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat meeting, clearly established that the said Patta had been fraudulently entered in the proposal register and was subsequently cancelled by the Gram Panchayat by resolution dated 25.06.2014. The Appellate Court further noted that the plaintiff himself admitted during cross-examination that encroachment 7 proceedings had been initiated against him and that an eviction warrant had been issued in respect of the government land bearing Khasra No. 696/1. In view of these facts, the Appellate Court concurred with the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove his entitlement to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, and accordingly dismissed the appeal while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2024 passed by the trial Court was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 9. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. 10. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellants/ plaintiffs failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 8 11. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings of fact. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 13. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 14. 14. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law 9 which is required under Section 100 of the CPC. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as as well as by the learned First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 15. On perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much less substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. In my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they does not call for any interference. 16. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed resulting in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti