1 2026:CGHC:16080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 385 of 2019 Gokul S/o Bhagatram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ..Appellant(s) versus 1 - Jaylal S/o Gandaru Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mehattar S/o Gando Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Suklu S/o Gando Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Raju S/o Andharu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Gandain S/o Late Lula Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Suknath S/o Late Lula Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Mohan S/o Late Lula Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 8 - Jhitaku S/o Gando Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Satgaon Tahsil And District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.09 10:27:50 +0530 2 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan, Advocate For Resp No. 1 to 8 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 9 : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 08/04/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant, who is the appellant herein, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/03/2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2018 (Gokul v. Jaylal & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.). By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant/appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 16/01/2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2016 (Jaylal & Others v. Gokul & Anr.) by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.), whereby the civil suit preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. (a) The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit against the defendants seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and for declaring the order dated 23/04/2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Kondagaon in Revenue Case 3 No. R.P.K.-2/A-70/2013-14 as illegal and void. In the said proceedings, the defendant No.1 also filed a counter-claim seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. (b) It is the case of the plaintiffs, in brief, that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 66/48 admeasuring 2.50 acres situated at Village Satgaon was originally recorded in the name of their father, late Gandoram, as his self-acquired property. During his lifetime, their father had permitted the father of defendant No.1, namely Bhagtu Ram, to cultivate the said land out of sympathy owing to his poor condition. It is pleaded that after the death of Gandoram, the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs, acquired title over the suit property and the same was partitioned amongst them. (c) The plaintiffs further pleaded that they belong to a Scheduled Tribe community and, therefore, their land could not have been transferred to a non-tribal person. It is contended that defendant No.1 has no lawful right over the suit land and is in unauthorized possession thereof. Upon demarcation conducted through revenue authorities, it was found that defendant No.1 was in illegal possession of the suit land. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar seeking removal of encroachment; however, the said application was rejected by order dated 23/04/2016. (d) It is further pleaded that the order passed by the Tahsildar is illegal and does not confer any right, title or interest upon defendant No.1. On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed for decree of declaration of title, recovery of possession and for setting aside the aforesaid revenue order, along with dismissal of the counter-claim preferred by defendant No.1. 4 (e) Defendant No.2, i.e., the State of Chhattisgarh, despite due service of notice, did not appear before the Trial Court and was proceeded ex parte. (f) Defendant No.1 filed his written statement as well as counter- claim denying the averments made in the plaint. It was contended that the suit land was originally a forest land adjacent to his house, which his father had cleared and brought under cultivation about 60 years ago and had been in continuous possession thereof. After the death of his father, defendant No.1 continued in possession and asserted that he has perfected his title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessor. (g) It was further contended that the plaintiffs have not clearly pleaded as to how and from which source they acquired title over the suit land. The demarcation conducted by the plaintiffs was also disputed on the ground that it was carried out in absence of defendant No.1 and, therefore, is not binding upon him. It was also pleaded that the Tahsildar, Kondagaon, after considering the long-standing possession of defendant No.1, had rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs, and the said order has attained finality. On these grounds, defendant No.1 prayed for dismissal of the suit and for allowing the counter-claim by declaring his title over the suit land on the basis of adverse possession. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them, the learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues for adjudication. The learned Trial Court, while deciding Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 together, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence 5 available on record, held that the suit land bearing Khasra No. 66/48 admeasuring 2.50 acres was originally recorded in the name of plaintiffs’ predecessor, late Gandoram, and after his death, the same devolved upon the plaintiffs. It was further held that though defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit land, such possession is unauthorized. The plea of adverse possession raised by defendant No.1 was negatived on the ground that the defendant failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse possession, particularly as to when his possession became hostile to the true owner. The learned Trial Court also held that mere long possession does not confer title in absence of clear and cogent evidence showing hostile animus. It was further held that the order dated 23/04/2016 passed by the Tahsildar does not confer any title upon the defendant and cannot be said to be illegal or void. 5. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit by declaring the plaintiffs as title holders of the suit land and directing delivery of vacant possession, while dismissing the counter-claim filed by defendant No.1. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant No.1 preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First 6 Appellate Court are illegal, perverse and contrary to law. It is contended that both the Courts have erred in dismissing the counter-claim on the ground of absence of pleadings and proof of adverse possession, while ignoring specific averments in the counter-claim as well as the deposition of the defendant’s witness indicating long, continuous and hostile possession to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden of proving dispossession within the prescribed period of limitation and, despite their own pleadings suggesting absence of possession for several decades, the suit for recovery of possession has been erroneously decreed. It is also contended that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant has not been properly appreciated, resulting in erroneous rejection of the counter-claim. It is further urged that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is not a proper speaking judgment and the findings recorded are unsustainable in the eyes of law, thereby giving rise to substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal. 8. 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. 9. 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 7 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. 10. Upon due consideration of the entire material available on record, it is apparent that the title of the suit property has been established in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of revenue records, which have remained uncontroverted. The defendant has also admitted that the land was recorded in the name of plaintiffs’ predecessor. 11. So far as the plea of adverse possession of defendant No.1 is concerned, both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the appellant has failed to establish the essential ingredients thereof. It is well settled that mere long possession does not ripen into title unless it is shown to be open, continuous and hostile to the true owner with a specific starting point. 12. In the present case, there is neither any clear pleading nor cogent evidence indicating the exact point of time from which the possession of the appellant became hostile to the true owner. The evidence on record, on the contrary, indicates that the possession of the appellant’s predecessor was with the knowledge and permission of the plaintiffs’ predecessor. In such circumstances, the plea of adverse possession has rightly been rejected. 13. The contention regarding limitation also does not merit acceptance. Once the appellant has failed to establish hostile possession, the question of perfection of title by adverse possession does not arise. The findings 8 recorded with regard to possession and entitlement of the plaintiffs are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 14. So far as the submission regarding non-consideration of evidence and absence of a reasoned judgment is concerned, on perusal of the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, it is evident that the same is a well-reasoned judgment based on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity. 15. 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. 16. 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 to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer from any such infirmity. 17. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court are pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 9 18. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The present Second Appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri