Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Gurubari Bai vs Smt.Mangali Bai And Ors on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14733
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
NAFR
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2026.04.02
16:02:07
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 23 of 2015
Smt.Gurubari Bai W/o Late Jalndhar Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village- Bhursundi Chowki/tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G.,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt.Mangali Bai And Ors. W/o Jalndhar Aged About 45 Years R/o
Bhursundi, Presently R/o Village- Karmari School Para, Chowki
Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., Chhattisgarh
2 - Baldev S/o Sahdev Muriya Aged About 66 Years R/o Vilage-
Bhausundi Chowki Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Motilal S/o Cheranga Muriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhusundi
Chowki Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Miss Guddi D/o Late Jalandhar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village-
Bharsundi, Presently R/o Karmari School Para Chowki/tah. Bastar,
2
Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - State Of Chhattisgarh D/o Thru- Collector, Bastar Collector Office,
Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Akash Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State: Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 30.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/defendant No. 1 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Learned First Additional District Judge, Bastar Distt- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2014 (Smt. Gurubai vs. Smt. Mangli Bai & Others arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Class- I, Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2012 (Smt. Mangla Bai vs. Gurubai & Others). For the sake of 3 convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The Civil suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking a decree for possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit lands situated at Village Bhursundi, Patwari Halka No. 32, R.N.M. Bastar, bearing Khasra Nos. 23, 52, 122, 126, 171, 211, 212, 27 and 87, admeasuring respectively 0.31, 4.76, 0.41, 1.01, 0.19, 0.79, 0.89, 0.380 and 0.450 hectares, total Khasra Nos. 9, total area 9.190 hectares. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and, on such basis, is entitled to receive all death-cum-retiral dues including pension, and compassionate appointment, on account of death of her husband namely Jalandhar, who died in harness while rendering the services in the Education Department.
3. (a) The brief facts are that the plaintiff, Mangli Bai, was married to Late Jalandhar, son of Sahdev Muriya, around the year 1987-88. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be the brother of Late Jalandhar, and Defendant No. 3 is the son of Cherga, who is the brother of Sahdev (father of Jalandhar). The plaintiff submits that she resided in a joint family and, after a few 4 years of marriage, gave birth to Defendant No. 4, namely Guddi. The suit properties are stated to be ancestral properties. Additionally, it is averred that Late Jalandhar had purchased certain lands out of his self-acquired income, namely Khasra No. 124 admeasuring 0.270 hectares and Khasra No. 249/100 admeasuring 0.610 hectares, total area 0.88 hectares, which have also been included in the suit property. It is further stated that Late Jalandhar was employed as a peon in a Government School and was transferred from Bakawand to Chapka, where he died on 20th February 2006 due to paralysis.
(b) The plaintiff further submits that during the lifetime of Late Jalandahr, she was subjected to harassment and physical assault by him due to which she returned to her parental home at Village Karmari, where she has been residing and educating her daughter Guddi. It is further alleged that Late Jalandhar came into contact with Defendant No. 1 and kept her as his concubine at Village Chapka. After the death of Late Jalandhar, Defendant No. 1, namely Guruvari Bai, without informing Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the plaintiff, got the suit 5 lands mutated in her name and obtained compassionate appointment as well as pension after the death of Jalandhar.
(c) The plaintiff contends that Defendant No. 1 has falsely projected herself as the wife of Late Jalandhar. The plaintiff has also referred to Revenue Case No. 24/3-6/08-09, wherein she sought mutation of her name along with Defendant No. 4, and states that the Tehsildar recorded the name of Defendant No. 4. Further reference is made to Revenue Case No. 197/B- 121/08-09, order dated 20.05.2009, wherein Defendant No. 1 allegedly obtained a legal heir certificate on false grounds and received death-cum-retiral dues, pension, and compassionate appointment on account of death of Jalandhar.
4. (i) The Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and denied that the plaintiff is the wife of Late Jalandhar or that any marriage took place 25 years ago. She has also denied that Defendant No. 4 is the only child of Late Jalandhar. Defendant No. 1 has completely denied the status of the plaintiff as wife in the genealogical tree. She has also denied possession of the suit land by the defendants and stated that, apart from her name, the names of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also recorded in the revenue records.
6
(ii) It is further submitted that being the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar, she is entitled to and is receiving all government dues and pension. She has contended that the plaintiff had earlier applied for mutation as the biological mother of Defendant No. 4, but the Tehsildar did not recognize the plaintiff as the wife of Late Jalandhar. Defendant No. 1 has further alleged that the plaintiff was previously married to one Mukund, son of Lakhu, and due to disputes, a criminal case bearing No. 149/1990 was registered. Thereafter, the plaintiff allegedly lived as the wife of one Budhru of Village Tetarguda and later with another Budhru of Village Bharni.
(iii) On these grounds, Defendant No. 1 asserts that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and has validly obtained the legal heir certificate, government dues, and compassionate appointment. She has further stated that the plaintiff has been residing in Village Karmari from the beginning. Hence, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.
5. (A) The Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, file their written statement and have admitted the facts stated in the plaint and supported the case of the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff is the legally 7 wedded wife of Late Jalandhar. They have admitted the existence of a joint family and correctness of the genealogical tree, and have stated that Bhima, Sahdev, Gagra, Cherga, and Jalandhar are deceased. It is further stated that though the suit lands are presently recorded in the names of Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 4, but Defendant No. 1 has no right over the same. They have also stated that the plaintiff and Defendant No. 4 are cultivating approximately four acres of land, while Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the remaining portion.
(B) They have admitted that Late Jalandhar was employed in the Education Department and died on 20th February 2006. They further stated that due to disputes, the plaintiff started residing in Village Karmari. They have accepted that the plaintiff is the biological mother of Defendant No. 4 and the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar, and have alleged that Defendant No. 1 was merely a concubine. It is further stated that Defendant No. 1 got her name mutated without informing the other defendants after the death of Late Jalandhar. They have referred to the mutation of Defendant No. 4's name based on the plaintiff's application and have 8 supported the plaintiff's claim, praying that she be declared the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and be granted all post-death benefits.
6. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 allowed the suit of the plaintiff holding that that Mangli Bai proved herself to be the legally wedded wife of late Jalandhar on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, and Guddi was held to be their legitimate daughter; the trial Court rejected Guruwari Bai's claim as a second wife and denied her any legal status or benefit, further holding that the alleged will was invalid for non-compliance with legal requirements and that revenue entries do not confer title, and accordingly declared that Mangli Bai alone is entitled to the deceased's property, pension, and other benefits, while treating the 2012 partition order as void, and thus decreed the suit in favour of Mangli Bai. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal. 9
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court holding that the plaintiff proved her marriage with late Jalandhar are erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law, as the alleged marriage has not been established in accordance with the essential conditions prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any recognized custom. Mere reliance on documents such as voter identity card and school certificate is wholly insufficient to prove a valid marriage.
8. According to learned counsel the suit is barred by limitation, no valid cause of action arose on 18.02.2010, and the suit has not been properly valued. The evidence of defendant No. 2 to 4 is unreliable and cannot be read in favour of the plaintiff, as it is contrary to their earlier stand, attracting the principle of estoppel against both the plaintiff and the said defendants. Moreover, oral evidence cannot override documentary evidence in the present case. Lastly, it is contended that the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court are non-speaking, perverse, and contrary to settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside. 10
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the material available on record.
10. The present second appeal arises against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Mangli Bai has been decreed; upon perusal of the entire record, this Court finds that both the learned courts have meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and have concurrently held that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Jalandhar and that Guddi is their legitimate daughter, which findings are duly supported by reliable evidence including school records, voter identity documents and consistent testimonies of witnesses; it is further evident that the defendant Guruwari Bai has failed to establish any valid marriage with the deceased or any legally enforceable right, particularly in absence of any pleading or proof of a custom permitting multiple marriages, and therefore she cannot be accorded the status of a legally recognized second wife; the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court have also rightly rejected the alleged will for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 63 11 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and have correctly held that mutation entries do not confer title; this Court finds no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings so recorded, which are pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence; no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.
7. 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.
8. 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/defendant failed to establish their 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.
12
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 13 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. 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 appellants herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib/Gowri