1 2026:CGHC:15600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 344 of 2024 Durga Prasad S/o Lakhanlal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jamha, Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.).....(Appellant / Plaintiff) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Pardesi S/o Late Anujram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Bhurwa S/o Late Anujram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Mongra Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 24-03-2026. 4 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Sunil Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.07 15:28:58 +0530 2 6 - Yogesh Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 7 - Ku. Savita D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 8 - Ku. Kavita D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 13 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Mongra Bai W/o Late Rajkumar, R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 9 - Ku. Sulekha D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 11 Years Through Legal Guardian Mother Mongra Bai W/o Late Rajkumar, R/o Village Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 10 - Parwati Bai D/o Late Rajkumar , W/o Rajesh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Dashrangpur (Chaarbhata), Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate For Private Respondents : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 06/04/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mungeli, District 3 Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/2023 (Pardeshi & Ors. vs. Durga Prasad & Anr.), whereby the Appellate Court by reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.53-A/2016 (Durga Prasad vs. Pardeshi & Ors.), has allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants, which had earlier decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit land situated at village Jamha, P.H. No. 51, Circle and District Mungeli, bearing Khasra Nos. 161/2 admeasuring 0.202 hectare, 161/4 admeasuring 0.012 hectare, 330/2 admeasuring 0.032 hectare, 372/3 admeasuring 1.626 hectare and 437/9 admeasuring 0.149 hectare, total admeasuring 2.021 hectares (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’), originally belonged to deceased Sukhni Bai, who remained in possession thereof during her lifetime. The plaintiff, being her grandson, was brought up by her like a son and, being pleased with his services, she executed a Will dated 09.02.2015 in his favour and had also handed over possession of the suit land to him in presence of panchas on 08.02.2015. After her death on 15.02.2015, the plaintiff performed her last rites and, on the basis of the said Will, got his name mutated in the revenue records vide order dated 13.01.2016, to which no objection was 4 raised by the defendants at that time. Subsequently, the defendants, claiming themselves to be the descendants of the sister of the deceased Sukhni Bai, preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mungeli, which was allowed by setting aside the mutation order vide order dated 30.06.2016, which is stated to be illegal and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land and the plaintiff has been in continuous possession for the last 25–30 years, and therefore, he is entitled to declaration of title and permanent injunction. 3. Per contra, defendant Nos. 3. Per contra, defendant Nos. 1 to 10, in their written statement-cum- counter claim, while vehemently denying the averments made in the plaint, have pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to Hirau Satnami, who inherited the same jointly along with his sisters Ghasnin Bai and Bisahin Bai from their father Dukalha, and after the death of Ghasnin Bai, her share devolved upon defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased Rajkumar, whose legal heirs are defendant Nos. 3 to 10. It is contended that the defendants are in joint possession of the suit land and the alleged Will set up by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside the mutation has attained finality and the present suit is based on false claims. It is further pleaded in the counter claim that since Sukhni Bai died issueless, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, being the sons of the sister of her deceased husband Hirau, along with defendant Nos. 3 to 10 as legal heirs of Rajkumar, are entitled to inherit the property 5 under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, and accordingly, they have sought declaration of their title, partition and separate possession along with permanent injunction. Defendant No. 11/State has been proceeded ex parte. 4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the counter-claim filed by the defendants, holding that the plaintiff has established his claim over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 29/11/2022, the defendants 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, reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and allowed the appeal in favour of the defendants vide impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and perverse, being contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He submits that the learned Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and has erroneously reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court, which had rightly decreed the suit. Learned counsel further submits that the Will dated 09.02.2015 (Ex. P/1), 6 executed by deceased Sukhni Bai in favour of the plaintiff, has been duly proved in accordance with law, particularly in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, by examining the attesting witnesses, and there is no material on record to hold the same as forged or invalid. Learned counsel would contend that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Sukhni Bai, who was in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will, and no evidence has been led by the defendants to establish otherwise. He also contends that the learned Appellate Court has ignored material admissions of witnesses and has failed to consider that the plaintiff, on the basis of the valid Will, is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and, therefore, entitled to declaration of title and permanent injunction. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. 6. 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. 7. In the present case, it is evident that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions and surrounding circumstances relating to the execution of the alleged Will dated 09.02.2015, particularly the inconsistencies in the statements of attesting witnesses and the doubtful manner in which the document came into existence. In contrast, the learned First 7 Appellate Court, upon a thorough and comprehensive re- appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that just a day prior to the alleged Will, a document resembling relinquishment was executed citing serious illness of the testatrix, and yet, on the very next day, she is stated to have travelled for execution of the Will, which renders the transaction doubtful. The contradictions in the testimony of the attesting witnesses, absence of reliable proof of due execution, and the active role of the beneficiary in preparation of the document have been rightly considered to disbelieve the Will. 8. The learned First Appellate Court has further rightly observed that where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden lies heavily upon the propounder to dispel such suspicion by cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies and suspicious features, including the doubtful presence of the testatrix at the time of execution, the non-registration despite availability of the registering authority, and material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. The Appellate Court has thus correctly held that the will (Ex. P/1) is not proved in accordance with law and cannot be made the basis for claiming exclusive title over the suit property. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere with the same under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8 9. It is to be noted that the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to examination of substantial questions of law. Even in a case where the First Appellate Court has reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court, interference is permissible only when the findings of the First Appellate Court are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, suffering from material irregularity, or involving a substantial error of law affecting the rights of the parties. Unless such infirmities are demonstrated, the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are binding in Second Appeal. 10. In the present case, the learned First Appellate Court, after due appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record, recorded findings that the plaintiff failed to established his case. The Appellate Court has correctly evaluated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion consistent with law. 11. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence. 9 12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, 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 the learned First Appellate Court appears 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 it does not call for any interference. 13. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, resulting in upholding the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar