1 , 2026:CGHC:19126 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 482 of 2018 Pyarelal Dewangan S/o S/o Shri Harihar Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Beladula, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Devangaon)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Panikram Kanwar S/o S/o Shri Baraturam Kanwar Aged About 55 Years R/o Ucchabhatti, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...........Defendants., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State , Through District Magistrate, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Amelal S/o S/o Shri Panchram Aged About 26 Years R/o Ucchabhatti Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Ugrasen S/o S/o Shri Panchram Aged About 24 Years R/o Ucchabhatti Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nindrabai S/o D/o Shri Panchram Aged About 22 Years R/o Ucchabhatti Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Shakuntala W/o W/o Shri Panchram R/o Ucchabhatti Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Anil Kumar D/o S/o Shri Daroga Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bhandora, Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.04.25 17:36:23 +0530 2 , ____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 25.04.2026 1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 30/06/2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Raigarh, C.G. in Regular Civil Appeal No.31/2018 (Pyarelal Devangaon Vs. Panikram Kanwar & Ors) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28/02/2018 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge Class-I to the Court of First Civil Judge Class-I, District Raigarh, C.G. in Civil Suit No.475A/2013 (Pyare lal Dewangan Vs. Panikram Knawar & Ors). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court. 2. The plaintiff preferred the Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession over the said property in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 103/6/3, area 0.202 hectares, situated at Village Uchchabhatti, Patwari Halka No. 2, Tahsil and District Raigarh pleading inter alia that the plaintiff is the owner and title holder of land mentioned in the Appendix "A" which is situated at village- Uchchabhatti,, P.H.No. 2, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). 3 , On 31.7.2006 the plaintiff has purchased the questioned land from Laxminarayan, who had possessed the land bearing Kh. No. 103/6/2 area 0.692 hectare and the plaintiff has purchased the land 0.202 hector out of land 0.692 hector, thereafter the said land has been renumbered as Kh. No. 103/6/3 and mutated in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. The Defendant No. 1 and Late Panchram (who is father of the respondent No. 3 to 5 and husband of the respondent No. 6) had purchased the land bearing Kh. No. 103/16 area 0.117 hector from Juglal, Premmati and others in the year 1995 but the Kh. number has been manipulated in the revenue record as 103/6. The defendant No. 7 has purchased the land bearing Kh. No. 103/6 area 0.073 hector from respondent No. 3 to 6 on 2.3.2013 (which is date of filling suit). It was further pleaded that the respondent No. 1 and 3 to 7 entered in the questioned unauthorized manner and started construction of boundary wall in the middle. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application u/s 250 of C.G. Land Revenue Code before the Naib Tahsildar. The Naib Tahsildar registered case, issued notice and recorded the statement of the witnesses of the parties. The Naib Tahsildar inspected the spot and conducted demarcation on 23.5.2012 and as per said demarcation report, the boundary wall has been constructed in the questioned land. The application of the plaintiff has been 4 , rejected by Naib Tahsildar only on the ground that the plaintiff has not challenged the demarcation report dated 12.6.2009 with respect Kh. No.103/16. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. 1 has admitted in the revenue proceeding that Patwari has deleted the Kh.No. 103/16 and manipulated Kh. No. 103/6 in the revenue records and he has never filed application for correction of Khasra number of land. 3. The defendants No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in their written statement denied all the plaint averments and submitted that the land mentioned in the plaint is not Khasra No. 103/6/3; rather, in fact, the said land is Khasra No. 103/6 as per the revenue records, and according to the B-1 register and the Khasra Panchshala of the year 2013–14, it is recorded in the names of the defendants. They stated that they have been in continuous and undisputed possession of the said land since 25/04/1995. The plaintiff has never been in possession of the said land. In the revenue records of the years 1997–98 and 1999–2000, the land bearing Khasra No. 103/6, area 0.117 hectares, continued to be jointly recorded in the name of Defendant No. 1 and the father of Defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, the late Panchram. The said land, prior to 25/04/1995, belonged to Pranmati (wife of Jugalal), Jagatram, Govardhan, and Lochan Prasad of Village Uchbhitti, which was jointly purchased by the father 5 , of Defendant No. 1 and the father of Defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, late Panchram. Thereafter, possession of the disputed land was given to them, and since then the defendants have been in possession of the said land. A boundary wall has already existed on the disputed land of Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and no new construction work is being carried out. 4. The defendant No.7 in his written stated submitted that the cause of action in the plaint has not been specified with a definite time and has been shown at different times in an unclear manner. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is false and fabricated, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff has made the defendant a party with the intention of illegally harassing him. The defendant has no relation whatsoever with the disputed land. The defendant has purchased land bearing Khasra No. 103/6, measuring 0.073 hectares, from Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 02/03/2013. Before the purchase, the vendors (Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6) represented that the said land bearing Khasra No. 103/6 was their lawful ownership and possession, and on that representation, the defendant purchased the said land. He further submitted that The seller has received full consideration for the sale. Before the sale, copies were issued by the Halka Patwari and the Tehsildar, and the 6 , same was also provided to the defendant, showing that vendors/defendants No. 1 and 3 to 6 had ownership rights over the land. Thus, Khasra No. 103/6 was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the vendors, and the sale deed was registered on 02/03/2013 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Raigarh. The plaintiff had filed an objection before the Sub-Registrar on 28/02/2013 to stop the execution of the sale deed, but the defendant executed the sale deed on 02/03/2013. The Sub-Registrar did not stay the registration, and therefore the plaintiff cannot rely on this objection, nor is the order binding on the defendant or the land in question. The plaintiff should have made the Sub-Registrar a party to the case and sought relief against him as well. Although the plaintiff has included Khasra No. 103/6 in Schedule ‘B’, he himself admits the land belongs to defendant No. 1 and is recorded in his name, making the inclusion incorrect. Further, the plaintiff has sought relief only against defendant No. 1 and no relief has been claimed against other defendants. Therefore, it would be proper to delete the defendant’s name from the plaint. 5. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that the certified copy of the registered sale deed 7 , dated 31.07.2006 filed by the plaintiff (Ex. P-1) shows that the seller, Laxminarayan s/o Dilchand, sold land bearing Khasra No. 103/6/2, area 0.202 hectares (0.50 acre), situated at Village Uchhbitti, to Pyarelal Dewangan s/o Harihar, who is the present plaintiff. The plaintiff has submitted Kisan Book No. 0504140 (Ex. P-2) as evidence of ownership and possession over the suit land Khasra No. 103/6/3, area 0.202 hectares. However, this document is not sufficient to prove the plaintiff’s ownership or possession over the suit land. The registered sale deed dated 31.07.2006 (Ex. P-1) shows purchase of Khasra No. 103/6/2, but the plaintiff has not produced any revenue records such as mutation register, khasra, or khatauni to show that Khasra No. 103/6/2 was subsequently renumbered as 103/6/3 and recorded in his name. The plaintiff has also not explained why such important revenue records have not been produced in support of his claim of ownership and possession. Further, no evidence has been provided to establish that Khasra No. 103/6 and Khasra No. 103/6/3 are the same land. The Trial Court further observed that The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner or in possession of the suit land Khasra No. 103/6/3, area 0.202 hectares. In such circumstances, no conclusion can be drawn merely on the basis of oral statements and assertions of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has unlawfully 8 , encroached upon the suit land by constructing a boundary wall measuring 78 feet in length, 42 feet in width, and about 1.5 feet in height in the middle portion. Since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff, the burden of proving the facts stated in the plaint lies upon him. But, the plaintiff has failed to discharge that burden. 6. Against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court who by the judgment and decree impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have committed grave error in law and on facts in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, as the findings recorded are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned counsel submits that both the Courts ought to have appreciated that the contesting respondents have failed to establish their alleged purchase of land bearing Khasra No. 103/6 and there are clear indications of manipulation in the revenue records. The Courts further erred in not properly considering the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff before both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court, which clearly support his claim. 9 , Learned counsel further submits that the learned Courts have also wrongly observed that the plaintiff did not file documents relating to Khasra No. 103/6/3, and have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff is the rightful owner and title holder of the suit property 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the material available on record. 9. In the present case, rin pustika Ex.P.2, Letter to Sub Registrar Ex.P.3, certified copy of statement of Panikram Kanwar recorded before revenue court of Naib Tahsildar Ex.P.4, report regarding encroachment Ex.P.5, Panchnama Ex.P.6, certified copy of sale deed of Kh. No. 103/16 Ex.P.7 are not belong to Kh. No. 103/6/3. Documents produced by the plaintiff are related to Kh. No. 103/6/2 but he claims for Kh. No. 103/6/3, which not belongs to him. In addition to that it make clear that in Kisan Kitab Ex.P.2, the Kh. No. 103/6/2 has been seen to be made Kh. No. 103/6/3. In respect to that no clarification or evidence leads by the appellant. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that Kh. No. 103/6/3 and Kh. No. 103/6 are the same land. In this regard, it is held without any hesitation that the appellant has failed to establish, by any cogent or reliable evidence, that Khasra No. 103/6/3 is identical to Khasra No. 103/6, or that Khasra No. 103/6/2 was ever mutated or renumbered as Khasra No. 10 , 103/6/3 in the revenue records. The appellant has not produced any supporting revenue documents such as mutation entries, khasra entries, or related records to substantiate this alleged change in survey numbers. In the absence of such material evidence, the claim of the appellant remains unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted. 10. Having considered the entire material on record, the plaintiff has failed to establish by any cogent or legally admissible evidence that Khasra No. 103/6/3 is identical to Khasra No. 103/6 or that Khasra No. 103/6/2 was ever mutated or renumbered as Khasra No. 103/6/3 in the revenue records. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff, including Ex. P-2 to Ex. P-7, pertain to Khasra No. 103/6/2 and do not support the claim regarding Khasra No. 103/6/3. In the absence of any mutation entries, khasra records, or khatauni entries demonstrating such conversion or re-numbering, the plea of the plaintiff remains unsubstantiated. It is further evident that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him to establish his ownership and possession over the suit land. The oral assertions made by the plaintiff and his witnesses cannot, in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence, displace the revenue record entries or establish title. The alleged encroachment by defendant No. 1 has also not been proved in accordance with law. 11 , 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 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 appellant/s failed to establish its case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 13. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants essentially require re-appreciation 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. 12 , 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 of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 16. 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 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 13 , 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 (1981) 2 SCC 414 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. (2005) 10 SCC 553, 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 (1995) 6 SCC 213, 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 14 , 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 Mann (dead) by Lrs & Ors. AIR (2001) SC 1273, 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. 17. 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 15 , 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. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep