1 2026:CGHC:9024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 230 of 2022 Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Bhishma Dev Aghariya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Dhansir Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District - Balodabajar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Bhogilal S/o Shri Usatram Aghariya Aged About 65 Years R/o Villat Dayalpur Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Jagatram S/o Shri Usatram Aghariya Aged About 55 Years R/o Villat Dayalpur Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 20.02.2026 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.02.20 17:31:58 +0530 2 1. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Learned Third Additional District Judge, Balodabazar in Civil Appeal No. 46-A/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Bhogilal & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 05-A/2012 (Bhogilal & Anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. 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 possession pleading inter alia that defendant Ajay Kumar sold the suit land bearing Khasra No. 580, area 0.385 hectare, situated at Village Dhansir, to them by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997 for 60,000/- and delivered possession. Their names were ₹ mutated in the revenue records, and they constructed a house and other structures over the land. The defendant earlier filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed, which was dismissed on 29.06.2009 in civil suit No.141-A/2007, and the dismissal was affirmed in appeal on 31.03.2012 bearing CA No.101-A/2011. It is alleged that in June 2012, when the plaintiff along with family had gone on a pilgrimage with their family, the defendant unlawfully broke open the lock of the 3 house and forcibly took possession. Despite lodging a police complaint, no action was taken. Therefore, the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of possession of the house from the defendant. 3. The defendants, in their written statement, have denied all the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that defendant Ajay Kumar never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 580, area 0.385 hectare, nor delivered possession thereof. It is contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and have managed to get their names recorded in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities. The defendant asserts that he has been residing on the said land since the time of his ancestors, having constructed a house thereon, and that he continues to remain in lawful possession with valid documents relating to the property. It is further pleaded that no illegal possession has been taken by him as the land belongs to him, and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge framed as many as 4 issues and given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and after a full fledged trial rendered a decision suiting the plaintiff on the ground that that the plaintiffs had duly proved the 4 execution and validity of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997 in respect of the suit land and their possession thereunder. It further took note of the earlier litigation wherein the challenge made by defendant Ajay Kumar to the said sale deed had been dismissed and the judgments had attained finality up to the appellate stage. The objection raised by the defendant regarding non-seeking of declaration of title was rejected, holding that a suit for recovery of possession is maintainable in cases of unlawful dispossession. On the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the Court concluded that the defendant had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs in June 2012 and, accordingly, decreed the suit directing delivery of vacant possession of the suit house within two months. 5. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant/ appellant has preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the valuation of the suit has not been properly made, as the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit in accordance with the prevailing 5 market value of the suit property, which has not been done in the present case. It is further contended that the findings recorded by both the Courts are contrary to the documentary evidence available on record therefore, unsustainable in law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record. 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding improper valuation of the suit property cannot be accepted, as such specific plea was not taken in the written statement with respect to the valuation of the suit. Having failed to raise or object the valuation part of suit, at the appropriate stage, the appellant is precluded from agitating the same at this stage. 9. Further from the material available on record, it is apparent that, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Appellate Court Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record and perusal of the original record of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had duly proved their title and prior possession over the suit land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997, the validity of which had already been upheld in earlier litigation up to the stage of second appeal. The Court observed that the defendant had not led any evidence in support of his plea and that the certified copy 6 of the earlier appellate judgment (Ex. P/1) and the police complaint (Ex. P/2) sufficiently established the plaintiffs’ title and their unlawful dispossession by the defendant. The contention that a suit for possession was not maintainable without seeking declaration of title was rejected. Finding no factual or legal infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court, the appeal was dismissed and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was affirmed. 10. 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. 11. 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 appellants/ defendants failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded. 7 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 100 of the CPC. In any event, 8 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 appellants 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. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 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 does not call for any interference. 17. Consequently, 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 Jyoti