1 2026:CGHC:14633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 33 of 2017 Virendra Kumar S/o Mannulal, Aged About 17 Years Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Seeta @ Rekha W/o Mannulal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Tikthi, Tahsil- Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..Appellant(s) versus 1 - Dasmatiya Bai W/o Sukhsen, Aged About 31 Years Caste- Mahra, R/o Village Tikthi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nawal S/o Kartikdas, Aged About 45 Years Caste- Mahra, R/o Village Tikthi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 3 - Mannulal S/o Kartikdas, Aged About 47 Years Caste- Mahra, R/o Village Tikthi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Prashad Mishra, Advocate For Resp No.4 : Mr. Malay Jain, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 27/03/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff, who is the appellant RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.03.30 10:24:11 +0530 2 herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 08/11/2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 53-A/2015 (Virendra Kumar v. Dasmatiya Bai & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, Bilaspur (C.G.). By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20/02/2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 21A/2014 (Virendra Kumar v. Dasmatiya Bai & Others) by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the civil suit preferred by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. (a) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No.3 admeasuring 0.708 hectare out of total Khasra Nos.6 admeasuring 1.060 hectare situated at Village Tikathi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), pleading that the said land was recorded in the name of Kartik Das, who was the grandfather of the plaintiff. It was averred that the wife of Kartik Das had expired long back and defendant No.1, after her marriage, was residing in her matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were living separately, whereas Kartik Das, during his lifetime, was residing with his eldest son i.e. defendant No.3. (b) The plaintiff further pleaded that Kartik Das, being pleased with the services rendered by defendant No.3, executed a Will dated 05.09.2006 in favour of the plaintiff Virendra Kumar, who is the minor son of defendant No.3, in respect of the suit property as well as other 3 properties mentioned therein. It was contended that the said Will was executed by Kartik Das during his lifetime conferring exclusive rights upon the plaintiff. (c) It was further pleaded that after the death of Kartik Das, defendant No.1 moved an application before the Tahsildar, Marwahi for mutation of her name in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and other lands. The plaintiff filed objections to the said mutation proceedings; however, the same were rejected by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pendraroad, which was also dismissed. It was pleaded that the cause of action arose in July, 2014 when the proceedings before the revenue authorities were decided against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the present suit valuing it at Rs.600/- and affixed the requisite court fee, seeking declaration that he be declared as exclusive title holder of the suit land on the basis of the Will and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. (d) The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. It was contended that Kartik Das had, during his lifetime, already distributed his properties equally amongst his legal heirs. It was further contended that the suit property was not exclusively owned by Kartik Das but was derived from earlier transactions and all legal heirs had equal share therein. It was also pleaded that defendant No.2 had rendered services to Kartik Das and the plaintiff, being a minor, could not have rendered any such services. It 4 was further contended that after the death of Kartik Das, his successors had applied for mutation before the Tahsildar and the same was decided in accordance with law. The defendants asserted that they are in possession of the suit property and the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. (e) Defendant No.4 remained ex parte and did not file any written statement nor led any evidence. Defendant No.3 also did not file any written statement nor adduced any evidence in support of his case. (f) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed issues relating to entitlement of the plaintiff for declaration of title, permanent injunction, limitation and valuation of the suit. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit property. It was observed that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit land was the self-acquired property of Kartik Das or that he had exclusive right over the same so as to execute a Will. It was further held that the revenue records produced by the plaintiff do not establish title and the Will alone is not sufficient to confer title in absence of proof of ownership of the testator. The Trial Court further held that since the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit property, he was also not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. (g) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Court. However, the learned First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire 5 evidence available on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and contrary to law as well as facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that both the Courts have erred in holding that the suit land was ancestral property and that Kartik Das had no right to execute the Will in favour of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and have recorded findings which are contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsel further submits that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in rejecting the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking additional evidence on record. It is also contended that the findings recorded suffer from misreading of evidence and therefore give rise to substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission and have carefully perused the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts as well as the material available on record. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to the 6 examination of substantial questions of law. Interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court is permissible only where such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence or suffering from an error of law. 7. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the plaintiff has primarily based his claim on the Will alleged to have been executed by Kartik Das. However, both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Kartik Das or that he had exclusive right over the same. 8. It is well settled that a Will operates only to the extent of the right of the testator over the property. In the absence of proof that the property was the exclusive or self-acquired property of Kartik Das, no valid title could be conferred upon the plaintiff on the basis of the Will. It has also been rightly held that the revenue records produced by the plaintiff do not constitute proof of title. Such entries are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership. 9. So far as the contention regarding rejection of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is concerned, it is apparent that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the additional evidence sought to be produced was not within his knowledge or could not be produced despite due diligence at the time of trial. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned First Appellate Court in rejecting the said 7 application. 10. As far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff with regard to production of certain documents in this appeal is concerned, such permission cannot be granted as a matter of course, nor can additional evidence be introduced at the whim or convenience of a litigating party. In fact, the general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and cannot take any evidence in an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. It is noteworthy to mention here that once trial had concluded and the decree was under challenged in an appeal, the appellants cannot be permitted to fill the gaps in their case by seeking to adduce further material to fortify the claim that was fundamentally flawed. (See: Gobind Singh and Ors. v Union of India and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.5168-5169 of 2011 decided on 9-3-2026) 11. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant essentially seek re- appreciation of evidence and substitution of this Court’s view for that concurrently taken by both the Courts, which is impermissible in a Second Appeal. 12. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Shiv Dayal and Another, (2019) 8 SCC 637, that interference in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only when such findings are shown to be based on misreading of material evidence, contrary to pleadings, or such as no reasonable judicial mind could have arrived at. The appellant has failed 8 to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer from any such infirmity. 13. Accordingly, the findings that the plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit property are findings of fact based on proper appreciation of the evidence and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 14. Consequently, the present Second Appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri