1 2026:CGHC:17131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 708 of 2019 Pransai S/o Govind Aged About 55 Years Caste Panika R/o Village Raee, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhatgaon, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh . Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Bandhan Son Of Govind (Died) 1.A Basanti W/o Late Bandhan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Raee, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surajpur, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For State(s) : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 15/04/2026 1. On 02.03.2026, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre; however, on account of the absence of the parties, the mediation proceedings could not be commenced. 2. 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: 2026.04.15 16:43:44 +0530 2 herein, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 52-A/2019 (Pransai v. Bandhan & Another) by the learned III Additional District Judge, Surajpur (C.G.). By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 72-A/2013 (Pransai v. Bandhan & Another) by the learned II Civil Judge, Class II, Surajpur (C.G.), whereby the civil suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant came to be dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. (a) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and partition in respect of the suit land situated at Village Rai, Patwari Halka No. 31, Revenue Circle Bhatgaon, Police Station Bhaiyathan, as detailed in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint. (b) It is the case of the plaintiff, in brief, that the suit property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendant and originally belonged to their grandfather, late Budhram Panika, who had acquired the same as his self-acquired property. It is pleaded that Budhram had five sons, namely, Amarsai, Rambhoolan, Peela, Govind and Gangduram. After the death of Budhram, his five sons partitioned the property and came into separate possession of their respective shares. (c) According to the plaintiff, the suit land described in Schedule ‘A’ fell to the share of Govind Ram. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff used to assist his father Govind Ram in agricultural operations, whereas 3 the defendant did not contribute towards cultivation nor took care of their father. It is further stated that after the death of Govind Ram, all last rites were performed by the plaintiff. (d) It is the further case of the plaintiff that being pleased with the services rendered by him, Govind Ram, during his lifetime, expressed his intention on 03.04.1986 in presence of witnesses to bequeath his property in such a manner that 2/3rd share would go to the plaintiff and 1/3rd share to the defendant. It is pleaded that, in pursuance thereof, the property was divided accordingly and both parties came into possession of their respective shares. It is also asserted that Govind Ram had executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. (e) The plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, the defendant, out of greed, moved an application before the Tahsildar, Bhatgaon seeking partition of the suit land into equal halves. Upon gaining knowledge of the said proceedings, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking declaration that he is entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property and the defendant to 1/3rd share, along with consequential partition. It is further pleaded that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff came to know about the application for partition preferred by the defendant before the Tahsildar. The plaintiff has valued the suit and paid the requisite court fee. (f) The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that both the plaintiff and the defendant were jointly cultivating the land after partition and that the defendant had also duly taken care of their father. It is further stated that 4 after the death of Govind Ram, both brothers jointly performed the last rites. The defendant further contended that during his lifetime, Govind Ram had already divided the property equally between both the brothers, granting 1/2 share each, and the defendant has been in possession of his share since then. It is specifically denied that any will was ever executed by Govind Ram. It is also contended that the application for partition before the Tahsildar was filed lawfully for division of ancestral property. The defendant further raised objections regarding improper valuation of the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. (g) The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined Ramjanam (PW-2) and Gendaram (PW-3) in support of his case. The plaintiff also exhibited documents including revenue records, map of the suit land, and the alleged will. The defendant examined himself as DW- 1 along with other witnesses, namely, Dholi Bai (DW-2) and Keshav Jaiswal (DW-3). No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues for adjudication. While deciding issue No. 1 relating to the entitlement of the plaintiff to 2/3rd share in the suit property on the basis of the alleged will, the learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove due execution and genuineness of the will dated 03.04.1986. Though one attesting witness was examined, the surrounding circumstances created serious suspicion regarding the authenticity of the will, particularly in view of the fact that no steps were taken by the plaintiff for mutation in 5 revenue records for a considerable period. The learned Trial Court further held that the revenue records reflected the names of both parties jointly, thereby not supporting the exclusive claim of the plaintiff. The plea of oral partition set up by the plaintiff was also disbelieved on the ground that neither specific pleadings nor cogent evidence were adduced to establish the date, manner or actual implementation of such partition. It was thus held that the plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to 2/3rd share in the suit property. 6. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that he failed to prove his claim for declaration of title and partition. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. It was observed that the alleged will (Ex. P/2) was an unregistered document written on plain paper bearing the thumb impression of Govind Ram, who was not a literate person. However, there was no evidence to establish that the contents of the will were read over and explained to the testator prior to affixing his thumb impression. The learned First Appellate Court further observed that the attesting witness Ramjanam (PW-2), in his cross-examination, made inconsistent statements regarding whether Govind Ram had affixed his thumb impression or signed the document, thereby casting serious doubt on the 6 due execution of the will. In view of such suspicious circumstances, it was held that the will had not been proved in accordance with law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is contended that the suit of the plaintiff has been erroneously dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his case, despite there being sufficient material on record. It is further submitted that the findings holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit property are unsustainable in law. Learned counsel urges that grave error has been committed in not placing reliance upon the oral partition as well as the will alleged to have been executed by Govind Ram in favour of the plaintiff, without proper appreciation of the evidence adduced in that regard. It is thus contended that the findings recorded suffer from misappreciation of evidence and non-consideration of material aspects, thereby giving rise to substantial questions of law as to whether the dismissal of the suit is justified, whether the plaintiff has been rightly denied his claimed share in the suit property, and whether the oral partition and will have been erroneously disregarded, warranting interference in this Second Appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission and have carefully perused the impugned judgments and 7 decrees passed by both the Courts as well as the material available on record. 10. 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 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. 11. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the plaintiff has primarily based his claim on the alleged will dated 03.04.1986 said to have been executed by Govind Ram in his favour, as also on the plea of oral partition. However, both these foundations of the plaintiff’s claim have not been established by cogent and reliable evidence. 12. So far as the will is concerned, it is well settled that the burden of proving due execution and genuineness of a will lies heavily upon the propounder. In the present case, though one attesting witness has been examined, the surrounding circumstances give rise to serious suspicion regarding the authenticity of the alleged will. Notably, despite the will being of the year 1986, no steps were taken by the plaintiff for mutation of his name in the revenue records for a considerable period. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for such inaction. 13. The revenue records placed on record, on the contrary, reflect the names 8 of both the plaintiff and the defendant jointly, which does not support the exclusive claim of the plaintiff over 2/3rd share of the suit property. In such circumstances, the finding that the will has not been duly proved cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. Insofar as the plea of oral partition is concerned, it is equally well settled that the same must be specifically pleaded and clearly proved by cogent evidence indicating the date, manner and actual implementation of such partition. In the present case, neither the pleadings nor the evidence disclose any definite particulars regarding the alleged oral partition. There is no material to show as to when such partition took place or which specific portions of land fell to the share of each party. 15. The evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff also does not establish that the alleged oral partition was ever acted upon. In absence of such proof, the mere assertion of oral partition cannot be accepted. The finding recorded in this regard is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity. 16. 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. 17. 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 9 reasonable judicial mind could have arrived at. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer from any such infirmity. 18. The findings recorded with regard to the failure of the plaintiff to prove the will and the alleged oral partition are pure findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 19. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. 20. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri