1 2026:CGHC:11587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 31 of 2020 1 - Budhaiya Ram S/o Budhram (Dead) Through LRs 1.1 - (A) Ramkeli Wd/o Budhaiya Aged About 67 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Ramsingh S/o Late Jakshan Ram Aged About 35 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C) Seti Bai Wd/o Jakshan Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - (D) Mangli Wd/o Durjan Aged About 50 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.5 - (E) Shravan S/o Late Durjan Aged About 45 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.6 - (F) Netlal S/o Late Durjan Aged About 27 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Rajapur, Police Station Jainagar Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.7 - (G) Sunita D/o Late Durjan Aged About 34 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Dumariya, Police Station- Patna, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koria Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 1.8 - (H) Sumitra D/o Late Durjan Aged About 34 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation- Agriculture R/o Village- Chungadi, Police AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.03.13 10:24:50 +0530 2 Station- Bhatgaon, Tahsil- Bhaiyathan, District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - Sonsai S/o Gourishankar (Dead) Through LRs 1.1 - (A) Kevli Wd/o Late Sonsai Aged About 30 Years Caste- Rajwar, Occupation- Agriculture R/o Village- Rajapur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.2 - (B) Lav Kumar S/o Late Sonsai Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Guardian His Mother Namely Kevli R/o Village- Rajapur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.3 - (C) Harinarayan S/o Late Sonsai Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Guardian His Mother Namely Kevli R/o Village- Rajapur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 1.4 - (D) Pinkey D/o Late Sonsai Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Guardian His Mother Namely Kevli R/o Village- Rajapur, Tahsil And District- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1A to : Mr. Sunil Tripathi and Ms. Varsha 1D Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 11.03.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/Defendants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 24/09/2019 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur C.G. in Civil Appeal No.16-A/2015 [Budhaiya Ram (Dead) through LRs Ramkeli & 3 Ors Vs. Sonsai & Anr.] arising out of the judgment dated 15/07/2015 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Surajpur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.57A/2014 (Sonsai Vs. Budhiya Ram & Anr ). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction regarding the suit land described in Schedule ‘A’, situated in Village Rajapur, P.H.N. No. 41, Tehsil and District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.” pleading inter alia that the plaintiff’s father Gaurishankar and late Butul were real brothers, and Defendant No. 01 is the step-brother of late Butul. Butul had no children, and his wife died around the year 1991. After her death, Butul lived with the plaintiff along with plaintiff’s father. Butul had accepted the plaintiff like an adopted son. During Butul’s old age, it was the plaintiff who used to look after him and manage his agricultural work. For this reason, Butul executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff. Butul died on 31.01.1993, and his last rites were performed by the plaintiff. After Butul’s death, when the plaintiff submitted an application on 11.02.1993 before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Surajpur, requesting that Butul’s name be removed from the revenue records and the plaintiff’s name be recorded in its place, Defendant No. 01 raised an objection claiming that he was Butul’s brother and therefore his name should also be entered as a legal heir in the property. Subsequently, Defendant No. 01 produced a forged will. The 4 Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the plaintiff’s application on the ground that Butul had executed another will cancelling the earlier will in favour of the plaintiff and passed an order to record the name of Defendant No. 01. If Defendant No. 01 had actually possessed a will executed by Butul, he would have produced it before the Assistant Settlement Officer at the very beginning. The plaintiff has been in possession and cultivation of the suit land described in Schedule “A” since the lifetime of Butul and has been residing in Butul’s house. 3. The defendant filed the written statement and denied all the plaint averments. He stated that Butul never lived with Gaurishankar. Butul used to cultivate his land himself. When he became weak and dependent, he started living with Defendant No. 01, and after Butul’s death, Defendant No. 01 performed his last rites. During the last 7–8 years of his life, Butul did not go anywhere outside the house; therefore, the allegation that Butul executed a will at Ambikapur is imaginary and false. According to Defendant No. 01, Butul had already executed a will in his favour during his lifetime. After Butul’s death, Defendant No. 01 submitted an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Surajpur to record his name over the land belonging to Butul. The authority passed an order directing that his name be recorded in the revenue records. Defendant No. 01 also claims that the plaintiff never lived with Butul and never carried out any agricultural work on Butul’s land. 5 4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the evidence and material available on record, allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the will produced by Defendant No. 01, which is in his favour, is written on plain paper. DW-3, Butan Ram, who is an attesting witness to the will allegedly executed in favour of the defendant, stated in his examination-in-chief that first Budhiya affixed thumb impression on the will, whereas according to the defendant the said will was executed by Butul. Thus, there is a contradiction between the statements of the witnesses and the contents of the document. In the will said to have been executed in favour of the defendant, there is no mention of the registered will previously executed by Butul, nor does it state that the earlier will was cancelled. All these facts create serious doubt about the claim that Butul had cancelled the registered will executed in favour of the plaintiff during his lifetime and had instead executed a valid will in favour of Defendant No. 01. The trial Court further observed that PW-2, Madwari Singh, has stated that he knows Sonsai, Budhiya, Gaurishankar, and Butul. The will executed by Butul is Exhibit P- 03, and the portion marked ‘A to A’ bears his signature. Since Butul had no children, he had kept his nephew Sonsai with him to assist in farming and to take care of him. Being pleased with the services rendered by Sonsai, Butul went to Ambikapur and got a will prepared and registered in favour of Sonsai. Butul had taken him and Shivprasad to Ambikapur for the purpose of executing 6 the will. Butul handed over his loan/passbook (debt book) to the Mukhtar (document writer) and stated that after his death he wanted Sonsai to become the owner of all his movable and immovable properties, and asked him to prepare a document to that effect. Accordingly, the Mukhtar typed the will and read it out to Butul. After hearing the contents of the will, Butul accepted it. Thereafter, the Mukhtar took them to the Registrar, who also read the will to Butul. Butul confirmed before the Registrar that the will was correct, and then the Registrar obtained Butul’s thumb impression on the document. After that, he and Shivprasad signed the will as witnesses, and thereafter the Registrar registered the will. 5. Against the said judgment and decree, the LRs of defendant No.1 filed the Civil Appeal before the learned appellate Court who by order impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/defendants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that both the Courts failed to consider will executed in favour of defendants. Both the Courts failed to consider the fact that neither the other attesting witness was examined to prove the will produced by the plaintiff, nor was any other evidence adduced to establish its due execution. Hence, the alleged will cannot be said to have been duly proved. The Courts further failed to 7 consider that the propounder of the will, Sonsai (PW/1), failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will and that there is no doubt regarding its genuineness. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 8. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the will produced by Defendant No. 01 is written on plain paper. Further, DW-3 Butan Ram, an attesting witness to the said will, stated in his examination-in-chief that first Budhiya affixed her thumb impression on the will, whereas according to the defendant the will was executed by Butul. This contradiction between the testimony of the defence witness and the contents of the document creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness and due execution of the alleged will relied upon by the defendant. Moreover, the alleged will in favour of Defendant No. 01 does not contain any reference to the earlier registered will executed by Butul, nor does it indicate that the said registered will was cancelled. These circumstances further render the defendant’s case doubtful. On the other hand, the plaintiff successfully proved the registered will (Exhibit P-03) executed by Butul in his favour. PW-2 Madwari Singh, an attesting witness, testified that Butul had no children and kept his nephew Sonsai with him for farming work and personal care. Being pleased with Sonsai’s services, Butul went to Ambikapur, where the will was 8 prepared, read over to him, and presented before the Registrar. After confirming its correctness, Butul affixed his thumb impression, the witnesses signed it, and the will was duly registered. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gopal Krishan and Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram and Ors reported in 2025 (2) SCC 804 laid down the principles which are required for proving of a WILL. Para 15 of the said decision reads as under:- 15. The requisites for proving of a will are well established. They were recently reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan. See also Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, The principles as summarised by the former are reproduced as below: (Meena Pradhan cases, SCC pp. 737-38, para 10) "10.... 10.1. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last will executed by him: 10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. 10.3. A will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say: (a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his 9 presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a will; (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary; (c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures; (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required. 10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined; 10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator. 10.6 If one attesting witness can prove the execution of 10 the will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with; 10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; 10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier; 10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious d circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the will, sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the will while acting on his own free will; 10.10 One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera e has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the 11 duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation: 10.11. Suspicious circumstances must be "real, germane and valid" and not merely "the fantasy of the doubting mind [Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa". Whether a particular feature would qualify as "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance, for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc." 10. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has categorically observed that the defendant No.1 has produced the will which is allegedly executed by Butul in his favour is in plain paper and the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court have not been fulfilled. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts are absolutely just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 11. 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 12 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. 12. 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 failed to establish its 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 13 of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 16. 16. 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 appellant 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 and infirmity at all. 17.Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep