Chattisgarh High Court
Gopal (Died) Through His Legal Heir vs Basant Lal on 25 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14315
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.27
10:38:48
NAFR
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 368 of 2018
1. Gopal (Died)
(A) Om Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 46 Years R/o
Ward No. 12 Kol Para Sonhat District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
(B) Ram Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 42 Years R/o
Ward No. 6 Thakur Para, Sonhat , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
(C) Shri Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur , District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
(D) Raju Prasad Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 44 Years R/o
Village Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur , District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
(E) Narad Kumar S/o Late Gopal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
(F) Smt. Kushum Bai W/o Ram Kumar (D/o Late Gopal) Aged About
47 Years R/o Village Mashira, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur
Chhattisgarh.
(G) Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Gopal Aged About 59 Years R/o
Village Govindpur Alias Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant(s)
versus
1. Basant Lal S/o Late Shri Bandhura, Aged About 47 Years Caste
2
Kewat, Occupation Service, District And Session Judge
Baikunthpur, District Koriya , Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Lalli, Wd/o Kishun Ram, Aged About 55 Years D/o Late
Bandhuram, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Bhaiyathan, Police Station
And Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Ajay Kumar S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 45 Years Caste-
Kewat, R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat,
District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
4. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 42 Years Caste
- Kewat, R/o Village - Ghummadand, Police Station And Tehsil
Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
5. Satish Kumar S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 36 Years Caste -
Kewat, R/o Village - Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
6. Smt. Aasha W/o Ramadhar, Aged About 33 Years D/o Laxman
Prasad, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Ramgarh, Police Station And
Tehsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
7. Smt. Geeta W/o Ganesh, Aged About 30 Years D/o Laxman
Prasad, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Bhalumada (Peeli Dafai) District
Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.
8. Smt. Lal Bai, W/o Kamla Prasad, Aged About 50 Years D/o Late
Bandhuram, Caste Kewat, R/o Nagpur (Tulsipara), Chowki Nagpur,
Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
9. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baikunthpur District
Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Defendants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
3
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Malay Jain, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 25.03.2026
1. The plaintiffs/ appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) Koriya Baikunthpur C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 07-A/2017 (Gopal Vs. Basant Lal & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 06-A/2016 (Gopal Vs. Basant Lal & Ors. ) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking confirmation of possession over the house situated on land bearing Khasra Nos. 381 and 382/2 admeasuring 0.02 and 0.01 hectare respectively at village Sonhat, for partition of the land bearing Khasra No. 293 admeasuring 0.125 hectare at Baikunthpur 4 and Khasra No. 801 admeasuring 2.00 hectares situated at village Sonhat, and for a declaration that the Will dated 15.02.1993 is null and void, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff Gopal and defendants No.1 to 4 are brother and sisters and the children of late Bhagmania Bai. It was further stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 204 admeasuring 0.223 hectare situated at village Dhauratikra had already been sold to Sampat Sahu, and that Bhagmania Bai died on 08.04.2006.
3. According to the plaint, lands bearing Khasra Nos. 204 and 293 admeasuring 0.223 hectare and 0.125 hectare respectively situated at village Dhauratikra, and lands bearing Khasra Nos. 381, 382 and 801 admeasuring 0.02, 0.01 and 2.00 hectares respectively situated at village Sonhat were recorded in the name of late Bhagmania Bai. During her lifetime, she sold the land bearing Khasra No. 204 admeasuring 0.223 hectare at village Dhauratikra to Sampat Sahu through a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1980. It was further pleaded that Bhagmania Bai resided with the plaintiff during her lifetime and that the house property bearing Khasra No. 293 admeasuring 0.125 hectare at village Dhauratikra was orally partitioned equally between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 Basantlal. After the death of Bhagmania Bai on 08.04.2006, a family arrangement dated 5 18.04.2006 was allegedly executed in the presence of community members. The plaintiff has challenged the Will dated 15.02.1993 said to have been executed by Bhagmania Bai as false and fabricated on the ground that it mentions land bearing Khasra No. 204, which had already been sold earlier in the year 1980. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the said Will, defendant No.1 initiated mutation proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar, Baikunthpur and the Tahsildar, Sonhat. The plaintiff also asserted that he continues to remain in possession of the house and badi situated over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 381 and 382 at village Sonhat and had been residing there along with his mother during her lifetime, while defendants No.2 to 4 had already received gold, silver and money at the time of their marriage and therefore had no claim over the suit properties. It was also stated that the appeal against the order of the Tahsildar in respect of the Sonhat land is pending before the Additional Commissioner and the appeal against the order relating to the Baikunthpur land is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur.s
4. Defendants No.1 to 4 filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that late Bhagmania Bai had self-acquired the lands situated at village Sonhat, Baikunthpur and village Dhauratikra. It was admitted 6 that the land bearing Khasra No. 204 admeasuring 0.223 hectare had been sold to Sampat Sahu, but it was pleaded that the said purchaser had not been impleaded as a party in the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff Gopal, being the eldest son, resides at village Govindpur, Tehsil Surajpur and looks after the land situated there, and that the said property has not yet been partitioned. According to the defendants, late Bhagmania Bai used to reside at village Sonhat and cultivate the land, while defendant No.1 used to assist and support her. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1, being employed at Baikunthpur, had constructed a house on the land situated at Dhauratikra with the assistance of his mother and was residing there. The defendants further contended that in order to avoid future disputes, late Bhagmania Bai had executed a Will dated 15.02.1993, whereby the ancestral property was bequeathed to the plaintiff Gopal and the remaining properties were bequeathed to defendant No.1. It was further stated that despite having full knowledge of the said Will after the death of Bhagmania Bai, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on false and baseless grounds, and therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
5. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the 7 learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the principal basis of the plaintiff's claim was the alleged family arrangement/arrangement deed dated 18.04.2006 relating to partition of the properties, however, the said document was neither produced nor proved before the Court. It was further observed that even the photocopy of the said document could not be admitted as secondary evidence, as the document was in the nature of a partition deed which required compulsory registration and was not registered. Consequently, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the alleged arrangement.
6. On the other hand, the Trial Court found that the Will dated 15.02.1993 (Ex. D-1) executed by late Bhagmania Bai was a registered document and its execution was duly proved through the testimony of the attesting witness. The Court observed that the plaintiff failed to establish that the said Will was forged or fabricated. The contention of the plaintiff that the Will was invalid on the ground that certain properties mentioned therein were government land or had already been sold earlier was also not substantiated by any reliable evidence. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged oral partition of the property bearing Khasra No. 293 or his exclusive possession over the disputed properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 8 30.08.2016, 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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit by placing reliance on the alleged Will dated 15.02.1993, which according to the appellant is forged and fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It is contended that the defendant No.1, being the beneficiary of the Will, failed to prove its due execution in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and failed to dispel the doubts regarding its genuineness. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had specifically challenged the validity and authenticity of the Will and had discharged his burden by pointing out the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, however the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the same and erroneously dismissed the suit. It is also contended that the Courts below failed to consider the Vyavastha Patra (family arrangement) relating to partition of the property, which was a material document supporting the case of the plaintiff, and therefore the 9 impugned judgments suffer from serious legal infirmity.
8. 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.
9. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the argument advanced on the ground that the sanctity of the Will (Ex. D-1) was not properly examined and that no issue in this regard was framed is concerned, a perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court reveals that a specific issue regarding the validity and genuineness of the said Will had indeed been framed and duly considered. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court examined the said issue in accordance with law and recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Will in question was forged or concocted. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant in this regard does not appear to have any substance.
10. Further, insofar as the Vyavastha Patra (family arrangement) is concerned, it appears that the said document was the subject matter of challenge in WPC No. 6834/2010, which was decided on 22.07.2011. In the said proceedings, the Court observed that the Vyavastha Patra was in the nature of 10 a partition deed and, in the absence of its registration, the same could not be taken into consideration as admissible evidence. It is also noteworthy that the said order has not been challenged before any higher forum and has thus attained finality. Consequently, the contention of the appellant based on the said Vyavastha Patra cannot be accepted.
11. The learned First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the evidence on record, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court observed that the principal foundation of the plaintiff's claim was the alleged Vyavastha Patra dated 18.04.2006 relating to partition of the properties; however, the said document was not brought on record and, in any case, being in the nature of a partition deed, it required compulsory registration and therefore could not be considered in evidence in absence of registration. The Court further held that the properties situated at village Sonhat and Dhauratikra were the self-acquired properties of late Bhagmania Bai and not ancestral properties of the parties, and therefore she was competent to dispose of the same through a Will. The execution of the Will dated 15.02.1993 (Ex. D-1) was found to be duly proved through the testimony of the attesting witness, who deposed that the Will was executed by Bhagmania Bai in his presence and in the presence of another attesting 11 witness. The Appellate Court also held that the mere mention of a previously sold property in the Will did not render the Will suspicious, particularly when the testatrix was an illiterate woman who had affixed her thumb impression. It was further noticed that the parties also possessed ancestral land at village Govindpur, Tehsil Surajpur, which was in possession of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Will was forged or fabricated and found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
12. 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.
13. 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/ plaintiffs 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.
12
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
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 100 of the CPC. In any event, 13 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.
18. 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.
19. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti