1 2026:CGHC:4552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 233 of 2025 Judgment reserved on 21.01.2026 Judgment delivered on 28.01.2026 Evangelical Trust Association Of North India Through Power Of Attorney Holder Prem Kishore Bagh Aged About 62 Years S/o Late J.S Bagh R/o Village Kutela Thana And Tehsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. Tehsildar Nazul Korba District Korba (C.G.) 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate Korba District Korba (C.G.) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Agrawal Sabha Korba Through Rajendra Agrawal President Agrawal Sabha Korba R/o Agrasen Bhawan Agrasen Road Korba (C.G.) 5. Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Korba Shri Kishanchand Dawada, President Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Korba R/o Sindhu Bhawan Shaeed Hemu Kalani Nagar Rani Road Korba Teh And District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.28 13:25:24 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) C A V JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned III District Judge, Korba, in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2025 (Evangelical Trust Association of North India v. Tehsildar Nazul & Others), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. Initially the plaintiff has filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I Korba for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 781 including Khasra No. 877 total Rakba 7.065 hect.( henceforth the suit land) by pleading inter alia that the trust has been in continuous possession of the suit land for more than hundred years and Missal Bandobast of 1929-1930 records the erstwhile name of the Trust as General Monolite Mission, Newton Kansas. It was further pleaded that subsequently all properties were transferred to the Evangelical Association of North India, and since then the name of the plaintiff-Trust has been duly reflected in all relevant records. It was further pleaded that during the process of digitization of the revenue records in the year 2014-15, the suit land was erroneously recorded as Government Land, however the land was always the private land wherein the plaintiff were having the undisputed title and possession. It was further pleaded that when the said fact came to the knowledge of the 3 plaintiff, the plaintiff preferred an application under Section 115 & 116 of the Land Revenue Code for the correction of the names in the revenue records but the same is pending since long. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. 3. In the said suit the defendant have filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They also filed reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 and prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 4. After hearing the parties, learned court of Civil Judge, Class-I Korba rejected the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 by order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure A-6). Against the said order the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Court of District Judge, Korba bearing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 04/2024, and by order dated 09.05.2024, the learned District Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff for a period of one year. Subsequently the plaintiff moved an application before the learned Court of Civil Judge Korba for impleadment of newly added proposed respondents No. 4 & 5 which has been allowed. Subsequently the defendant No. 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. On due consideration of the entire aspect of the matter and holding that the suit is more than valued at Rs. 5 Lakhs, the learned Court of Civil Judge returned the suit to the plaintiff for prosecution before the jurisdictional competent Court. 4 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred a fresh suit before the Court of Learned District Judge, Korba along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction. In the said suit the defendants have filed their reply and denied the plaint averments and also filed reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and prayed for rejection of the claim of the plaintiff. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned III District Judge, Korba, passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-1) and rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient and cogent evidence to establish that any person had attempted to interfere with their possession by use of force. It was further held that since defendants No. 4 and 5 have already been allotted the suit land, the extent of irreparable loss likely to be caused to them would be greater than that which would be suffered by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Missal Bandobast of 1929–1930 records the name of the plaintiff-Trust, thereby raising a statutory presumption of long-standing possession and title in favour of the plaintiff, which has been completely overlooked. The finding that the plaintiff failed to establish interference is also erroneous, as the plaintiff has placed on record photographs depicting Christian religious symbols 5 and structures existing on the suit land, clearly evidencing continuous possession of the Trust and a credible threat of interference by the defendants. Further, the observation that irreparable loss would be caused to Defendants No. 04 and 05 merely on the basis of their recent allotment is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles, particularly when the plaintiffs have been in possession for more than hundred years. The Learned trial Court has failed to apply the well-settled three-fold test for grant of temporary injunction existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and has unjustifiably ignored the earlier order dated 09/05/2024 passed by the Learned District Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04/2024, wherein injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs after due consideration. The finding regarding absence of forcible interference is misconceived, as in a suit for injunction, proof of actual dispossession is not required. A credible apprehension of interference is sufficient, which stands duly established from the pleadings, photographs, and historical documentary evidence on record. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 would support the order impugned and would submit that learned Trial Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective has rightly passed the order impugned which is just and proper wanting no interference of this Court. In support of his contention, he would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. Patkar reported in (2024) 13 SCC 553. 6 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In the present case, the plaintiff seeks temporary injunction on the basis of alleged long-standing possession and title over the suit land. Undoubtedly, the plaintiff has relied upon Missal Bandobast of the year 1929–1930 and certain photographs to substantiate its claim. However, at the stage of grant of temporary injunction, mere production of old revenue entries, without corroborative contemporary evidence showing actual, physical, and exclusive possession, is not sufficient to establish a strong prima facie case, particularly when the current revenue records reflect the land as Government land and the same has admittedly been allotted to defendants No. 4 and 5. 11. From perusal of the documents, it is evident that the landlord’s name is mentioned as landowner in the settlement records of the year 1929-30. No evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff trust to show that the entire disputed land was given by the original landowner/landlord to the plaintiff trust for cultivation before the implementation of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The plaintiff trust has not submitted any revenue documents to establish the fact that it was in exclusive possession of the disputed land. The entry of the name in the remarks column may indicate that the land was given by the original landowner for some purpose at that time, but it does not imply that the landowner granted any rights of possession in favour of the plaintiff. Even, no document has been presented to show that any action was taken by the plaintiff trust to have them declared the owner of the plot after the Land Revenue Code came 7 into effect. No document has been presented to show that any application was submitted before the revenue authorities regarding the granting of ownership rights to the landlords over their non-cultivated land after the implementation of the Zamindari Abolition Act. Thus, no document related to valid ownership appears to have been presented at this stage. The plaintiff trust has not adduced any evidence to demonstrate its physical possession over the entire disputed plot, nor has it presented any document to prove that it acquired valid ownership. Therefore, prima facie, the case does not appear to be in favor of the plaintiff trust. 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of P. Kishore Kumar (Supra) held that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership, while sale-deed of defendant is more reliable and supported by the Govt. orders and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Paras 22 to 26 and 36 & 37 reads thus:- “22. It is trite law that revenue records are not documents of title. 23. This Court in Sawarni V. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. 24. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land. 25. In Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, this Court after considering a catena of judgments, 8 reiterated the principle of law as follows: (SCC OnLine SC para 6) "6. ... mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose." 26. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.” XXX XXX XXX XXX 36. Mr S.N. Bhat placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752 to contend that the plaintiff was only expected to prove his title to a high degree of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of law argued by the learned Senior Counsel is not one we wish to dispute, the same having been well-settled through numerous decisions of this Court. However, having led in evidence only revenue documents which are essentially fiscal in nature, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, the plaintiff has been unable to assert his case to a high degree of probability. It is, therefore, not enough that the plaintiff led in evidence records of rights for a number of years in an attempt to establish his title; such records would not counter the proof of occupancy rights furnished by the defendant, in a test of probative value. 37. This Court in Somnath Burman v. S.P. Raju, (1969) 3 SCC 129 held that possession can be regarded as a better title against all, except the true and lawful owner. Therefore, 9 the multitude of revenue documents put to use to argue that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit property would not adequately meet the demands of proof made by law. The only credible document of title led as evidence in the present case was in favour of the defendant's predecessor-in- interest; hence, it must follow that it is only the defendant who can be declared the lawful owner of the 'B' schedule property. 13. From the aforesaid decisions, it is crystal clear that mutation in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. It is also trite law that mere mutation of records does not divest the owners of a land of his rights, title and interest therein. Even otherwise, a mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and such an entry in the revenue records is made only for the fiscal purpose. 14. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts of the present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, particularly considering the fact that the plaintiff failed to establish that the land in question is in his exclusive possession and any person had attempted to interfere with his possession by use of force, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff failed to establish any palpable error in the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court. 15. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti/Rahul