1 2026:CGHC:2186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 691 of 2019 1 - Lileshwari W/o Kuber Ram Nag, Aged About 50 Years R/o Kodabhata, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh..............Plaintiff, 2 - Ku. Purnima, D/o Kuber Ram Nag, Aged About 29 Years R/o Kodabhata, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh...............Plaintiff, 3 - Ku. Jyoti D/o Kuber Ram Nag, Aged About 26 Years R/o Kodabhata, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh..............Plaintiff, 4 - Ku. Pooja, D/o Kuber Ram Nag, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kodabhata, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh..............Plaintiff, 5 - Yogal S/o Kuber Ram Nag, Aged About 18 Years R/o Kodabhata, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh..............Plaintiff, ... Appellants versus 1 - Kheduram S/o Asharam, Aged About 60 Years R/o Hatkungera, P.S. And Tah. Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh............Defendant, 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kanker, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh...............Defendant, AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 10:49:48 +0530 2 ---- Respondents ____________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 14.01.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30/09/2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.7/2018 (Lileshwari & Ors Vs. Kheduram & Anr) arising out of the judgment dated 07/02/2018 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Uttar Bastar Kanker, C.G. in Civil Suit No.8A/2013 (Lileshwari & Ors Vs. Kheduram & Anr), whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs preferred a suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction for restraining the defendant No.1 from creating any interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Further the case of the plaintiffs are that in Village Kodabhati, P.H. No. 16, R.N.M. Kanker, Tahsil Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh), the agricultural lands 3 bearing Khasra Nos. 27/1ख/2, 27/13, 27/1थ/2, 27/1प/1, Rakba Nos. 2.70, 1.50, 2.00, 2.70 hectares, total Khasra Nos. 04 with a total area of 6.91 hectares, are recorded in the names of the plaintiffs. The said land was purchased in the year 1995–96 by paying the entire consideration amount from the income earned from the salary of husband of Plaintiff No.01 and the father of the remaining plaintiffs, while Plaintiff No. 01 was in government service. In order to avoid any legal complications, the name of defendant No. 01 was also included in the sale deed. After the death of Kuber Nag(father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5) on 17/02/2004, the plaintiffs have been in possession and cultivation of the said land. On the basis of a consent deed executed by the defendants on 21/06/2007, the name of defendant No. 1 was deleted from the disputed land. Since the year 2010, defendant No. 1 has been interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, regarding which the plaintiffs have lodged a report at the police station. After making the necessary pleadings, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a declaration of title over the suit land, and in the alternative, recovery of possession and a permanent injunction. 4. In the said Civil Suit, the defendants submitted the written statement and denied the plaint averments. Defendant No. 01, in his written statement, has denied all the averments except the admitted facts and has alleged that the consent deed is forged. Defendant has pleaded that his father, Asharam, 4 purchased the said land in the names of his sons Kuber and Kheduram by two sale deeds dated 04/11/1995, out of the income derived from his agricultural land situated at Hatkogendra. 5. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding therein that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution and genuineness of the alleged consent deed dated 21.06.2016 (Ex. P-3), on which their entire claim was based. The burden to proof issues lies upon the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs admitted ignorance about the preparation of the document and that the signatures were not made before the Notary; the document (Ex.P-3) also lacked khasra numbers. The Notary’s evidence did not support proper notarisation, and defendant No.1 specifically denied his signatures and alleged forgery. No independent evidence was led to prove the document. The Court further found that the suit land was jointly purchased by the plaintiff’s husband Kuber and defendant No.1, giving defendant No.1 equal title and joint cultivating possession, which was also supported by admissions of the plaintiffs. 6. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed the Civil Appeal before the learned appellate Court who by order 5 impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 6 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 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 well as by the learned First appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality 7 and infirmity at all. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep/Rahul