1 2026:CGHC:13605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 10 of 2016 Dinesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Janak Ram Verma, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Guma, Tahsil Palari, Revenue And Civil District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.........Plaintiff ... Appellant versus 1 - Chulendra Verma S/o Late Holsai Verma, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Guma, Tahsil Palari, Revenue And Civil District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.......Defendant No. 1 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.........Defendant No. 2 …. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruw, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 23/03/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.03.25 18:02:35 +0530 2 plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2015 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. H-08- A/2015 (Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. Chulendra Verma & Anr.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Balodabazar (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 99-A/2013 (Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. Chulendra Verma & Anr.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No. 609/1 admeasuring 0.725 hectares, situated in Village Guma, P.H. No.1, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), pleading inter alia that the suit land originally formed part of approximately 400 acres of agricultural land belonging to the predecessor of defendant No.1, late Mansharam Verma. After his death, the property was recorded jointly in the names of his four sons, including Shobharam Verma, the plaintiff’s ancestor. Subsequently, the property was divided amongst Mansharam Verma’s sons and later amongst their descendants, whereby the suit land came into the possession of the plaintiff’s father and ultimately the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that due to a clerical 3 error, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Late Holsai, the son of Mansharam, and after his death, in the name of Chulendra, defendant No.1. The plaintiff and his predecessors have been in peaceful possession of the suit land for over 50 years, yet the revenue records erroneously show defendant No.1’s name, causing the plaintiff considerable hardship. The plaintiff also pleads that pursuant to a panchayat decision dated 04.08.2002, the parties had agreed to correct the revenue records according to actual possession, but defendant No.1 failed to comply and, in May 2013, caused demarcation of the land in the plaintiff’s absence, subsequently claiming ownership over the disputed land. Hence, the plaintiff seeks declaration of ownership, recognition of possession, and consequential relief for appropriate compensation from defendant No.1. 3. Per contra, defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and pleaded that he is the recorded owner and in possession of the suit land as per the revenue records, and the plaintiff was well aware of the same from the very beginning. It is further pleaded that despite such knowledge, the plaintiff has deliberately instituted the suit on false and baseless grounds, and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.2, however, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement nor contested the proceedings. 4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as 4 well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff has not established his claim over the suit land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 23/12/2014, the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts are illegal, perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that both the Courts have failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and have erroneously dismissed the suit despite the preponderance of probability being in favour of the plaintiff. He contends that both the learned Courts have ignored the long and continuous possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land and have wrongly denied his right merely on the ground that his name was not recorded in the revenue records, without considering that such non-entry was due to incorrect entries made in favour of defendant No.1. He also contends that the findings recorded suffer from misappreciation of evidence and raise substantial questions of law, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgments and 5 decrees be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed as prayed for. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission, and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court as also the learned First Appellate Court have been carefully examined. 7. In the present case, both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court, upon due appreciation of the pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title and possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 609/1 admeasuring 0.725 hectare. The Courts have taken note of the documents produced by the plaintiff, including the agreements and demarcation report, and have found that the same neither relate to the suit property nor confer any legal title. On the contrary, the revenue records and documents produced by defendant No.1 clearly establish his ownership and possession over the suit land. It has been categorically held that in absence of proof of title and possession, the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration or permanent injunction. The plaintiff has thus failed to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or legal infirmity is demonstrated so as to warrant interference with the findings recorded by both the Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under 6 Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. 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. 9. 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/ plaintiff failed to establish his case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 10. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings of fact. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. 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. 12. In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal 7 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. 13. 13. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 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 as well as by the learned First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no question of law much less substantial question of law within the 8 meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. In my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same and they do not call for any interference. 15. Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge $. Bhilwar