1 2026:CGHC:18988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 402 of 2024 Sheikh Anwar Khan S/o Late Sheikh Jumman, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village-Pondi, Police Chowki-Pondi, Police Station-Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District-Kabirdham (C.G.) .Appellant(s) Versus 1 - Duryodhan S/o Kaichuraam Gadaria, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Pondi, Police Chowki-Pondi, Police Station-Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 2 - Tijau S/o Late Dukhitram Gadaria, Aged About 89 Years R/o Village-Pondi, Police Chowki-Pondi, Police Station-Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Kejuram S/o Late Dukhitram Gadaria, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Pondi, Police Chowki-Pondi, Police Station-Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Fanjuram S/o Late Dukhitram Gadaria, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Pondi, Police Chowki-Pondi, Police Station-Bodla, Tehsil- Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.25 13:33:24 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 24/04/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff/appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23/07/2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/2022 (Sheikh Anwar Khan v. Duryodhan & Others). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals preferred by both the plaintiff and the defendants, and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11/01/2022 passed by the II Civil Judge Class-I, Kawardha in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2016, whereby both the suit of the plaintiff and the counter-claim of the defendants were dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. (a) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession in respect of the land situated at Village Podi, Patwari Halka No. 7/21, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.), comprising part of Khasra No. 235 admeasuring 0.15 acre, Khasra No. 236 admeasuring 0.04 acre, and Khasra No. 237 admeasuring 0.07 acre, total area 0.26 acre (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). (b) According to the plaintiff, his father, late Sheikh Jumman, had purchased certain lands from defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by registered sale deed dated 20.08.1975 and was put in possession thereof. It is pleaded that since the date of purchase, the plaintiff’s father, and thereafter the 3 plaintiff, have been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of the suit property and have been cultivating the same. The plaintiff further asserts that the boundaries of the land have remained unchanged since the date of purchase and that his possession was within the knowledge of the defendants. It is also stated that the plaintiff got his name recorded in the revenue records and has been regularly paying land revenue. (c) The plaintiff further pleaded that upon objection raised by defendant No. 1 against the construction being carried out by him, proceedings were initiated before the Tahsildar, Bodla, wherein, after spot inspection, the complaint of defendant No. 1 was rejected. It is also stated that in earlier proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Officer had found possession of the plaintiff and directed that no interference be caused. Despite the same, the defendants allegedly interfered and took possession of the suit property. On these pleadings, the plaintiff claimed that by virtue of long, continuous, and hostile possession for more than 39–40 years, the title of the defendants stood extinguished and the plaintiff had become the exclusive owner by adverse possession. (d) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and counterclaim, denying the plaint averments. It was contended that the plaintiff was in possession only of the land actually purchased by his father and that the remaining land continued to be in possession of the defendants. The defendants asserted their ownership over the suit land on the basis of revenue records and pleaded that the plaintiff had 4 encroached upon portions of Khasra Nos. 235, 236, and 237 in the year 2014. The defendants further pleaded that they had already taken steps for recovery of possession in accordance with law. By way of counterclaim, the defendants sought declaration of their title, recovery of possession over the encroached portions, and permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their possession. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the issues for adjudication and, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit as well as the counterclaim of the defendants. It was held that the plaintiff failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse possession, namely, that his possession was continuous, open, exclusive and hostile to the true owner for the statutory period. The Trial Court found that the revenue records and other material on record did not support the claim of exclusive and hostile possession of the plaintiff and that the alleged encroachment and dispute between the parties surfaced only in the year 2014. It was further held that the defendants also failed to establish their entitlement to the reliefs claimed in the counterclaim, and accordingly, both the suit and the counterclaim came to be dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, both the plaintiff as well as the defendants preferred separate appeals. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove acquisition of title by adverse possession. It was further held that the defendants had also 5 failed to establish their entitlement to the reliefs claimed in the counterclaim. Accordingly, by common judgment both the appeals were dismissed by the appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were affirmed. Thus, this appeal by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are contrary to law and evidence on record, inasmuch as it has been erroneously held that the appellant has not acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession despite evidence of long, continuous, open and hostile possession to the knowledge of the defendants, thereby vitiating the findings recorded. It is contended that the evidence, including revenue records and earlier proceedings recognizing possession of the appellant, has not been properly appreciated, and the conclusions drawn are perverse. It is further submitted that the First Appellate Court was not justified in affirming the findings without proper and independent re-appreciation of the entire evidence and without adequately dealing with the grounds raised in appeal. On these premises, it is urged that substantial questions of law arise as to whether the appellant has perfected title by adverse possession, whether the affirmation of findings is legally sustainable, and such other question of law as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to formulate in the interest of justice. 7. 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. 6 8. 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. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the plea of adverse possession. The findings recorded clearly indicate that the possession of the plaintiff was neither proved to be continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period nor shown to be hostile to the true owner. Mere long possession or cultivation, in the absence of clear and cogent evidence of hostile animus, does not confer title by adverse possession. 10. The material placed on record, including the revenue entries and earlier proceedings relied upon by the plaintiff, has been duly considered and rightly held to be insufficient to establish exclusive and hostile possession over the suit property. The evidence, on the contrary, indicates that the dispute between the parties arose in recent years and that the claim of adverse possession has not been substantiated in accordance with settled principles of law. 11. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and are essentially findings of fact. The question 7 whether possession is adverse is a mixed question of fact and law which, in the present case, has been answered against the plaintiff on the basis of the evidence on record. No perversity, misreading, or non- consideration of material evidence has been demonstrated. It is also noteworthy that various revenue proceedings were initiated between the parties before the competent authorities, including proceedings before the Tahsildar and demarcation proceedings. The material brought on record in such proceedings indicates that the dispute regarding possession of the suit property arose in recent years. These proceedings, rather than supporting the plea of long, continuous and hostile possession, in fact demonstrate that the possession of the plaintiff was disputed and not settled, thereby weakening the claim of acquisition of title by adverse possession. 12. 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. 13. Very recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavna Seth & Ors. in C.A. No. 109/2010 decided on 09.04.2026 has held thus at paras 31 to 35 :- “31. It is settled in law that the findings of fact howsoever 8 erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon the substantial question of law, if any, arising therein. Thus, the argument that the High Court in second appeal ought to have examined the evidence to ensure the correctness of the findings of the First Appellate Court has no legs to stand and fails. 32. Long back in 1981, three judges of this Court in the case of Bholaram Vs. Ammerchand had ruled that even if findings of facts by courts below are wrong or grossly inexcusable that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere under Section 100 CPC in the absence of clear error of law. A similar view was reiterated in Madhavan Nair vs. Bhaskar Pillai (Dead) by Lrs., wherein it has been laid down that even if the First Appellate Court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. 33. In Kashibai w/o Lachiram and Another vs. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram and others, a similar proposition of law was laid down by this Court and it was held that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of facts unless a substantial question of law or a question of law duly formulated is to be decided. The second appeal does not lie on the ground of erroneous findings of facts based on appreciation of the relevant evidence. 34. Similar is the situation in the case at hand. The High Court has not found any substantial question of law or a question of law worth consideration in the second appeal and, therefore, there was no occasion for it to have reappreciated the evidence so as to come to a different conclusion. 35. Again, in Kulwant Kaur & Ors. Vs. Gurdial Singh 9 Mann (dead) by Lrs & Ors., it was emphasized that the fact remains that in a second appeal, a finding of fact, even if erroneous, will not be disturbed unless it is found that it stands vitiated for want of perversity. No such case for interference has been made out in the present case. “ 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants essentially require reappreciation of evidence and substitution of a different factual view, which is impermissible within the limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or material irregularity in the approach of the findings has been demonstrated. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present Second Appeal in absence of any substantial question of law. Accordingly the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri