1 2026:CGHC:14509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 612 of 2016 Ramlal S/o Babadin Panika, Aged About 49 Years Caste Panika R/o Village Naudhiya, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Shyamwati D/o Bahori Panika, Aged About 39 Years Caste Panika, R/o Village Naudhiya, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Koriya District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pawas Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 27.03.2026 1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 07.10.2016 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.03.30 10:45:29 +0530 2 passed by the Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 01-A/2016 (Ramlal Vs. Shyamwati & Anr.). Arising out of the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 08-A/2011 (Ramlal Vs. Shyamwati & Anr. ) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant and partly allowed the counter-claim of the defendant’s. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction and declaration of the mutation order as null and void in respect of the land situated in village Naudhiya P.H. No. 4 Tehsil Bharatpur, District Koriya, C.G. pleading inter alia that the disputed land situated at Village Naudhiya, P.H. No. 4, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Korea (Chhattisgarh), bearing Khasra Nos. 428, 708, 709 and 710 having an area of 0.97, 0.96, 0.10 and 0.08 hectares respectively, total measuring 2.11 hectares, originally belonged to late Babadeen, son of Devidin. Late Babadeen had only one wife, namely Rambai, and the plaintiff is the only child born out of their wedlock. It is contended that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land for the last 30–35 years since the lifetime of his father and continues to remain 3 in possession thereof. The plaintiff further stated that late Babadeen executed a Will dated 25.01.2007 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. However, defendant No.1, is the wife of Bahori Panika and a resident of Village Belgaon, and defendant No.2 Shyamwati, is the daughter born out of the wedlock of Kuwariya (defendant No. 1) and Bahori Panika, and not the legal heirs of late Babadeen. Despite this, the defendants falsely claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of late Babadeen and, through Gram Panchayat Naudhiya, got their names recorded in the revenue records over the suit land by order dated 29.02.2008. Aggrieved by the said mutation order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharatpur, District Korea, which was dismissed in default on 30.12.2010. After the said order, the defendants started browbeating the plaintiff with dispossession from the suit land. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration that the mutation order dated 29.02.2008 is illegal and ineffective; declaration of the plaintiff as the sole owner; possessor of the suit land; and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. 3. Defendant No. 1 having died prior to filing the written statement, the written statement has been filed by Defendant No. 2. It is contended that late Babadeen was the owner of 4 about 12 acres of land, out of which 6 acres had been given to the plaintiff about 25 years ago, and the plaintiff was separated from the family. After obtaining mutation of his name over the said land, the plaintiff has been cultivating the same separately. Therefore, having been separated during the lifetime of late Babadeen, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the present suit property. It is further pleaded that Defendant No. 1 along with Defendant No. 2 has been cultivating the suit land continuously. After the death of Rambai, the first wife of late Babadeen and mother of the plaintiff, late Babadeen married Kuwariya bai (defendant No.1), who had earlier separated from her former husband Bahori Panika through customary divorce according to social practice. After her marriage with late Babadeen, one son named Babulal was born from their wedlock, who has since died. Thereafter, Defendant No. 2, Shyamwati, was born to late Babadeen and Kuwariyabai. Thus, Defendant No. 2 claims to be the legitimate daughter and legal heir of late Babadeen. It is also denied that late Babadeen executed any Will dated 25.01.2007 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the alleged Will relied upon by the plaintiff is forged, fabricated and false. It is further pleaded that late Babadeen died on 07.02.2007, and on 25.01.2007 he was seriously ill and had lost his mental capacity, therefore the alleged Will is invalid and not legally enforceable. The 5 defendant further states that the mutation proposal was rightly passed by the Gram Panchayat on 29.02.2008. Accordingly, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit and by way of counter-claim has sought a declaration that Defendant No. 2 be declared as the owner of the suit land. 4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on the ground of limitation, but partly allowed the counter-claim of defendant No. 2 and declared that both the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are owners of the suit property to the extent of half share each holding that both parties admitted that the suit property originally belonged to late Babadeen. The main dispute was whether Defendant No. 2 Shyamwati was the daughter of Babadeen and whether the plaintiff alone was entitled to the suit property. On the basis of the oral evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence such as the mutation register, the Court held that Shyamwati was born out of the relationship between Babadeen and Kuwariyabai and therefore she is the legitimate daughter of late Babadeen. The Court found that the plaintiff himself admitted in cross- examination that Kuwariyabai lived with Babadeen as his wife and that Shyamwati lived with Babadeen during his lifetime. 6 The mutation records also reflected the name of Babadeen as the father of Shyamwati. Hence, the Court concluded that defendant No. 2 is the daughter and legal heir of late Babadeen. The Trial Court further examined the Will dated 25.01.2007 relied upon by the plaintiff and found that the same was not genuine. The Court noticed serious discrepancies in the document and evidence, including the fact that the stamp paper on which the Will was executed was issued in the year 2009, whereas the Will was claimed to have been executed in 2007. Therefore, the Court held that the alleged Will was forged and fabricated and declared it ineffective. The Court also rejected the contention of defendant No. 2 that Babadeen had already partitioned the property during his lifetime by giving six acres to the plaintiff, as no documentary evidence was produced to prove such partition. From the evidence on record, the Court held that the suit property belonged to late Babadeen and that both the plaintiff Ramlal and defendant No. 2 Shyamwati are his legal heirs and members of the joint Hindu family. Accordingly, the Court held that both parties are entitled to equal half share in the suit property. However, the Court further held that the plaintiff had challenged the mutation order dated 29.02.2008 passed by the Gram Panchayat, whereas the suit was filed on 14.06.2011, beyond the prescribed period of limitation of one year. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was held to be barred by 7 limitation. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015, 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 both the Courts below are contrary to the facts of the case and the evidence available on record. He further submits that defendant No. 1 was not the legally wedded wife of late Babadeen and, therefore, defendant No. 2 cannot be treated as the legitimate child of late Babadeen. It is contended that in such circumstances defendant No. 2 is not entitled to claim any share in the suit property. 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 First Appellate Court re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record to determine the question of succession to the property of late Babadeen. From the 8 documentary evidence, particularly the Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 1983–84 (Ex.P-1) and the re-numbering list of the land (Ex.P-2), it was found that the suit property was originally recorded in the name of Babadeen. The mutation register extract (Ex.P-3) further reflected that after the death of Babadeen, the names of his wife Kunwariya, his son Ramlal (appellant) and his daughter Shyamwati (respondent) were entered in the revenue records on the basis of inheritance through proceedings conducted by the Gram Panchayat and verified by the Revenue Inspector. While examining the question whether respondent Shyamwati was the daughter and legal heir of Babadeen, the First Appellate Court scrutinized the oral evidence of the witnesses produced by the appellant himself. The appellant Ramlal (PW-1) stated in his examination-in-chief that Shyamwati had come along with her mother Kunwariya when she started residing with Babadeen. However, in cross-examination he admitted that after the death of his mother Rambai, Babadeen lived with Kunwariya and Shyamwati. The witness Chhotelal (PW-2), though initially supporting the appellant’s version, admitted in his cross-examination that Babadeen and Kunwariya had a son named Babulal and that about five to six years thereafter Shyamwati was born in village Naudhiya. Similarly, Mahasingh (PW-3) admitted in cross-examination that after the death of Rambai, Babadeen had kept Kunwariya as his 9 wife and that Shyamwati was born from their relationship. The appellate court noted that both these witnesses were residents of the same village and were of advanced age, and therefore their testimony regarding the birth and family relations carried evidentiary value. On the basis of these admissions, the court concluded that the evidence adduced by the appellant himself established that Shyamwati was born out of the relationship between Babadeen and Kunwariya and was therefore the daughter and legal heir of Babadeen. The First Appellate Court further examined the appellant’s claim of exclusive title based on an alleged Will dated 25.01.2007 said to have been executed by Babadeen. However, during his evidence the appellant himself denied having produced or relied upon such Will, and no attesting witness or other legally admissible evidence was led to prove its execution in accordance with law. Consequently, the court held that the Will was not proved and the claim of exclusive title on that basis could not be accepted. The court also considered the respondent’s plea that Babadeen had earlier partitioned his property and had given a separate share to the appellant about 25 years prior, but found that except for certain admissions made by the appellant in cross- examination, no documentary evidence or reliable proof of such earlier partition or separate possession was produced. In the absence of cogent evidence, the plea of prior partition 10 was also held to be unsubstantiated. 9. Upon such appreciation of the entire evidence, the First Appellate Court recorded a finding that both the appellant and the respondent were proved to be the legal heirs of late Babadeen and that neither party had succeeded in establishing exclusive title over the suit property. Although the trial court had erred in holding the suit to be barred by limitation on the basis of mutation proceedings, the Appellate Court held that mutation does not confer title; however, on merits it concurred with the finding that both parties are legal heirs of Babadeen and are entitled to equal shares in the suit property. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015 passed by the trial Court declaring the appellant and the respondent as co-owners having half share each in the suit property was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. 10. 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. 11. In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, on the 11 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel 12 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 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. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and 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. 13 17. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti