1 2026:CGHC:20123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 177 of 2020 Kamla Bai W/o Sanjeevan Lal Aged About 40 Years Caste Kewat , R/o Village Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh. (Present District Gourella Pendra Marwahi , Chhattisgarh.)...(Defendant No. 05), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .Appellant(s) versus 1 - Sundi Bai W/o Late Ramsurat Aged About 50 Years Caste Kewat , R/o Village Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh (Present District Gourella Pendra Marwahi , Chhattisgarh. 2 - Budhsen S/o Late Ramsurat Aged About 28 Years Caste Kewat , R/o Village Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh (Present District Gourella Pendra Marwahi , Chhattisgarh.) 3 - Babulal S/o Late Sukhlal Aged About 45 Years Caste Kewat , R/o Village Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh (Present District Gourella Pendra Marwahi , Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramkhilawan S/o Late Sukhlal Aged About 40 Years Caste Kewat , R/o Village Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh (Present District Gourella Pendra Marwahi , Chhattisgarh. 5 - Premwati W/o Bhanwar Singh Aged About 65 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Pandri ,tehsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh, R/o Village RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.04.30 18:22:51 +0530 2 Pandri , Tehsil Marwahi , District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh. ( Present District - Gourella - Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh).. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Bilaspur , Chhattisgarh., (Present District Gourella - Pendra - Marwahi , Chhattisgarh) (Defendant No. 7), Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate (through VC) and Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate For Resp No. 6 : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 30/04/2026 1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant, who is the appellant herein, assailing the judgment and decree dated 28/01/2020 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 29A/2017 (Sundi Bai & Anr. v. Babulal & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, Bilaspur (C.G.). By the said impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 & 2 herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27/01/2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 71A/2010 (Sundi Bai & Anr. v. Babulal & Others) by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. Facts of the case: 3. (a) The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit against the defendants seeking 3 declaration of title over the suit land, recovery of possession, and for declaring the sale deeds as null and void. The suit land is situated at Village Chachedi, Patwari Halka No. 03, Revenue Inspector Circle Marwahi, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), bearing Khasra No. 3/02, admeasuring 1.25 acres (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). (b) The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit land along with other lands originally belonged to plaintiff No. 01 as ancestral property, which was allotted to him pursuant to an order of partition dated 07.01.1979 passed by the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Marwahi in Partition Case No. 33A-27/1978-79. Plaintiff No. 01 is the son of plaintiff No. 02, and both their names were recorded over the suit land. (c) It has been further pleaded that the father of defendants No. 01 to 03 and husband of defendant No. 04, namely Sukhlal, got his name recorded over the suit land on the basis of false and fabricated documents, though the possession of the suit land always remained with the plaintiffs. Upon coming to know about such illegal entry, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pendraroad, which was registered as Case No. 29A-6/1999-2000 and was allowed vide order dated 22.03.2002, restoring the names of the plaintiffs over the suit land. (d) Thereafter, the plaintiffs sold the suit land to defendant No. 06, Premvati, by a registered sale deed dated 31.05.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. However, Sukhlal preferred a revision against the order dated 22.03.2002 before the Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, which was registered as Revision Case No. 34A-6/2001-2002 and was 4 allowed vide order dated 08.06.2004, whereby the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer was set aside and the name of Sukhlal was restored in the revenue records. (e) It has further been pleaded that the plaintiffs preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which came to be dismissed due to their non-appearance. Thereafter, Sukhlal sold the suit land to defendant No. 05, Kamla Bai, by a registered sale deed dated 08.02.2006, who has since been in possession thereof. (f) It is the further case of the plaintiffs that due to dispossession of defendant No. 06, Premvati (who had earlier purchased the land from the plaintiffs), she demanded refund of the sale consideration. A settlement took place in the Panchayat, pursuant to which the plaintiffs refunded Rs. 30,000/- to defendant No. 06 on 02.09.2008 in the presence of witnesses, and the earlier sale deed was returned. However, as the name of Sukhlal continued in the revenue records, the title of the plaintiffs became clouded. (g) On these grounds, the plaintiffs prayed that the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 executed by them in favour of defendant No. 06 and the sale deed dated 08.02.2006 executed by Sukhlal in favour of defendant No. 05 be declared null and void, and that the plaintiffs be declared owners of the suit land and be put in possession thereof. (h) Defendants No. 01 to 05, in their written statement, denied the plaint allegations except those specifically admitted and contended that the name of Sukhlal was never removed from the revenue records and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. 5 (I) Defendant No. 06, in her written statement, while denying the plaint allegations, contended that she has been in possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, whereas the plaintiffs and other defendants belong to a backward class, and since the land falls within a Scheduled Area, transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal without permission of the Collector is illegal. It was also alleged that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 05 was obtained by fraud and is void in law. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record, the Trial Court framed issues on 25.11.2009 and 03.05.2011 for adjudication of the dispute. After appreciation of evidence and material on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title over the suit land, as the alleged acquisition through partition was not supported by any reliable documentary evidence and the document relied upon did not specifically establish allotment of the suit land to them, rendering the revenue entries based thereon of no evidentiary value. It was further held that the plea of oral partition remained unsubstantiated, particularly in view of the admissions of the plaintiff witnesses regarding lack of knowledge of khasra numbers and details of allotment. The Court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish ownership or possession, whereas the defendants proved their possession on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 08.02.2006 supported by consistent evidence. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed except to the limited extent that the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 06 was 6 held to be of no legal effect. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence, held that the Trial Court had failed to properly appreciate the revenue records and the effect of the partition proceedings. It found that the revenue records including khatauni and B-1 entries consistently reflected the names of the plaintiffs pursuant to the partition proceedings, thereby supporting their claim of title and possession. The Court further held that the defendants failed to establish their plea of acquisition of the suit land either by partition or by any valid tabadlanama or exchange, as no legally admissible document was produced in support thereof. It also observed that the Trial Court erred in discarding material revenue records and in not properly appreciating the evidence regarding title. Accordingly, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, this appeal by the defendant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse inasmuch as it has reversed the well-reasoned findings recorded by the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the Trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit land, whereas the First Appellate Court, on mere assumptions and presumptions, has erroneously decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the First Appellate Court has failed to consider that the plaintiffs did not challenge the order 7 dated 08.06.2004 (Exh.P/2) passed by the Additional Collector, Pendraroad, whereby the earlier revenue order stood set aside and the revenue entries were altered, and in absence of any challenge to the said order, the foundation of the plaintiffs’ claim itself stood disturbed. It is also contended that the First Appellate Court has proceeded to decree the suit without any substantive evidence and on mere presumption and assumption, without there being any legal foundation to establish the plaintiffs’ title or right over the suit land, and therefore the findings recorded suffer from perversity giving rise to substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC. 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. 8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substantial questions of law. Even where the First Appellate Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court, interference is warranted only when such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or suffering from a substantial error or misapplication of law. 9. The plaintiffs’ case is founded on the plea that the suit land originally fell to their share in partition proceedings and continued to be recorded in their names in the revenue records. The defendants, on the other hand, disputed the plaintiffs’ title and claimed their rights on the basis of alleged prior possession and subsequent entries in revenue records 8 pursuant to orders passed in revenue proceedings. 10. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit land, as the alleged partition was not proved by any cogent documentary evidence and the revenue entries based thereon were not sufficient to confer title. It further found that the defendants were in possession on the basis of subsequent revenue entries and other supporting evidence on record. 11. The First Appellate Court, however, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence, held that the revenue records including khatauni and B-1 entries consistently reflected the names of the plaintiffs pursuant to the partition proceedings, and that the defendants failed to establish their plea of acquisition of the suit land either by partition or by any valid tabadlanama or exchange. It further held that the Trial Court had misread and misappreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly discarded relevant documentary evidence. 12. A careful examination of the record reveals that the plaintiffs placed reliance upon revenue documents including the khasra and B-1 entries (Ex.P/10 & P/12) as well as the order passed in the revenue proceedings (Exh. P/11). The Trial Court, on scrutiny of Ex.P/10 & P/11, held that the said documents did not conclusively establish that the suit land had fallen to the share of plaintiff Sundi Bai in the alleged partition, particularly as the document (Ex.P/11) did not specify the exact allotment of land and was not a clear partition order, and accordingly dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court, upon re- 9 appreciation of the same material, particularly Ex.P-10, observed that the revenue records consistently reflected the name of Sundi Bai and contained a specific note indicating that such entries were made pursuant to the partition proceedings concluded by order dated 07.01.1980 in Revenue Case No. 33A-27/1978-79. It further took note of the fact that the said revenue entries continued in the name of the plaintiffs and that the underlying revenue proceedings had not been shown to have been set aside or successfully challenged by the defendants. On that basis, the First Appellate Court held that the suit land had come into the share of the plaintiffs in the said partition and that the Trial Court had erred in discarding the evidentiary value of the revenue records without proper appreciation. Ex.P/10 is the revenue record in which name of Sundi Bai (Plaintiff) has been recorded pursuance to the order dated 07/01/1980 in the revenue proceeding bearing Case No. 33A-27/1978-79, which was never objected by the Defendant and the order dated 07/01/1980 was never challenged before any Higher Forum. Hence, the reversal finding of the learned First Appellate Court is just & proper. 13. It is well settled that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, but they are relevant pieces of evidence when considered along with other material on record. In the present case, the First Appellate Court has relied upon long-standing revenue records and other documentary evidence to support the plaintiffs’ case, whereas the defendants failed to produce any cogent evidence to rebut the same. 14. Upon consideration of the entire record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings recorded by the First 10 Appellate Court so as to warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal within the meaning of Section 100 CPC. 16. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri