Chattisgarh High Court
Ganesh Jaiswal vs Rambharos on 9 March, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2026:CGHC:11284
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved for Judgment On : 10.10.2025
Judgment Delivered On : 09/03/2026
Judgment Uploaded On : 09/03/2026
SA No. 525 of 2019
1 - Ganesh Jaiswal S/o Late Gopi Jaiswal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bajrang
Chowk, Balodabazar, Tehsil- Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Appellant/Plaintiff
versus
1 - Rambharos S/o Late Gopi Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o Bajrang
Chowk, Balodabazar, Tehsil Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Mantora Bai Wd/o Motilal Jaiswal Aged About 70 Years R/o Beltara Via
Ratanpur, District- Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Durgibai Wd/o Durgaprasad Sahu R/o Lavanroad, Balodabazar, District-
Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balodabazar, District-
Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)/Defendants
(Cause title is taken from CIS) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Pushpkumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Judgment 2
1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.03.2019, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Appeal No.71-A/2017, whereby learned 2nd Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017, passed in Civil Suit No.81-A/2014, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I, Balodabazar dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court.
3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and joint possession of suit property pleading therein that property subject mater of the suit, description of which is mentioned in Para-2 of the plaint, is initially owned by Sunder Lal, who died near about in the year 1950. He was survived by his widow Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai and four daughters namely Ghuriya Bai, Janakdulari, Dhela Bai and Mantora. Family tree of Sunder Lal is extracted below for ready reference :-
Sunder Lal (died about 1950) Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai (died 1993) Ghuriya Bai Janakdulari @ Kachara Bai Dhela Bai Mantora (Plaintiff) Munna Shashikala Rambharosa Ganesh Prasad Def.No.1 3
4. In the plaint it is further pleaded that land bearing Kh. No.1071 measuring area 0.032 hectare and Kh. No. 2995/1 measuring 0.032 hectare total 0.064 hectare was owned by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai and her daughters. Aforementioned property was situated at Balodabazar Lavan Road, it was not cultivated and was lying barren. Rambharosa one of the son of Ghuriya Bai had started construction over the land mentioned above, upon which, other son of Ghuriya Bai had objected to it upon which Rambharosa, defendant No.1 started quarreling stating that the property on which he is raising construction is purchased by him about 20-30 years ago from her maternal grand mother -Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. It is also pleaded that the said plea and statement of Ram Bharosa is false because about 15-20 years ago, Ghuriya Bai (original plaintiff), defendant No.1 Ram Bharosa were residing together with Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai but Rambharosa has not given any information about purchasing of the land from Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai, nor mother of plaintiff had given any information in this regard. Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai was an old illiterate lady and taking undue advantage of it, registered sale deed got executed. Sale deed was without sale consideration. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 got transferred the property in his name, his wife's name and also in the name of sister Mantora. In the year 1989, defendant No.1 got one registered will executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Malti Bai (wife of Rambharosa). Further on the same date another will was executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of her daughter Mantora Bai. Sale deed of part of house 4 is executed in favour of Malti Bai, wife of Rambharosa by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. Part of house is also sold in favour of Mantora Bai by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. Both the sale deed one in favour of Malti Bai and another in favour of Mantora Bai were executed on 14.06.1991.
5. Perusal of the relief clause would show that plaintiff has sought declaration of joint possession over property as mentioned in para-2 of the plaint and has sought specific relief that by registered sale deed dated 18.06.1976, Rambharosa did not get any right or title over the property bearing Kh. No.1071 measuring 0.032 hectare and land bearing Kh. No.2995/1 measuring 0.032 hectare. With regard to the other properties, which is pleaded to have been sold through registered sale deed in favour of Malti Bai and Mantora Bai, no specific relief has been prayed for.
6. Defendants No.1 submitted written statement denying specifically the pleadings made in the plaint with regard to execution of sale deed in his favour by taking undue advantage and it was pleaded that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. during her lifetime was independently taking care of properties received by her from her husband, who died much before. Properties, which were sold by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai was to meet out her need for survival and also for marriage of her daughters. Execution of sale deed is with her own free will without there being any force or compulsion. Sale deed was executed within the knowledge of other family members. Since the date of execution of sale deed dated 18.06.1976, defendant No.1 came in possession exclusively. Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai died in the year 1993 and 5 since 1993 till date of filing of suit, no objection was raised. It is also pleaded that one of the sister of original plaintiff namely Janak Dulari in proceedings of Civil Suit No.281-A/2002 has pleaded that she had purchased one part of the house out of (three kholies/rooms) and only thereafter the suit was filed. Will was executed in his favour of entire house known as three kholis and in one part of that, plaintiff is in unlawful possession, therefore, defendant No.1 has filed, the civil suit against the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No.6-A/2004, which is pending. Only with intent to mount pressure against defendants to withdraw the earlier suit, this suit was filed. It is also pleaded that on the date of starting dispute, defendant No.1 was not raising any construction over the land bearing Kh. No.1071 or 2995/1 but adjacent land owned by Durgi Bai bearing Kh. No.1075 and 2994/1 was purchased by Satish Jaiswal on which after getting map approved from Municipal Council, Satish Jaiswal was raising construction over the land purchased by him.
7. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by the parties has formulated as many as 7 issues for consideration, which reads as follows :-
i) Whether plaintiff is having title over the land bearing Kh. No.1071 area 0.032 hectare and Kh.
No.2995/1 area 0.032 hectare situated at Village Balodabazar?
ii) Whether sale deed dated 18.06.1976 is illegal and void?
iii) Whether all the legal representatives of Sunder Lal are having title over the suit property?
6
iv) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for relief of joint possession of suit property?
v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
vi) Whether the suit is barred by principles of res- judicata?
8. Plaintiff in support of their pleadings has examined R.K. Verma, Revenue Inspector as (P.W.-1), Ganesh Jaiswal, (substituted by original plaintiff) as (P.W.-2), Lallu Prasad Jaiswal as (P.W.-3) and exhibited copy of sale deed dated 18.06.1976 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai infaour of Rambharosa as (Ex.P-1), copy of sale deed dated 14.01.1991 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Malti Bai as (Ex.P-2), copy of sale deed dated 14.01.1991 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Mantora Bai as (Ex.P-3), copy of registered will deed dated 11.01.1989 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Rambharosa (defendant No.1) as (Ex.P-4), copy of registered will deed dated 11.01.1989 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Mantora Bai as (Ex.P-5), copy of registered will dated 11.01.1989 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Malti Bai as (Ex.P-6), copy of judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.23-A/2007 between Lallu Prsad Vs. Malti Bai, Ghuriya Bai, Munna @ Suresh, Shashi Bai, Mantora Bai and Rambharos as (Ex.P-7).
9. Defendants in support of their case have examined Mantora Bai as (D.W.-1), Rambharosa Jaiswal as (D.W.-2) and Satish Jaiswal as (D.W.-3) and have produced sale deed dated 21.06.2004 as (Ex.D-1) executed by Durgi Bai in favour of Satish Jaiswal, building permission in name of Satish Jaiswal and sanctioned map as (Ex.D-2), Kissan 7 Kitab in the name of Satish Jaiswal as (Ex.D-3), Kissan Kitab in the name of Radha Bai as (Ex.D-4).
10. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties had decided all the issues in negative except the issue with regard to limitation that suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit.
11. Learned First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff while affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal.
12. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned both the Courts below was not justified in dismissing the suit without appreciating the fact that plaintiff's mother Ghuriya Bai was having share in her father's property, therefore, entitled for joint possession and joint ownership. It is also contended that learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the facts and evidence that date of knowledge of sale deed dated 18.06.1976 in favour of defendant No.1, was only in the year 2005. Learned Courts below have not taken into consideration that under Hindu Succession Act, after death of land owner all the legal representatives became joint owner as the same is self acquired property. Learned Courts below have wrongly held that plaintiff is not having any right and title over the suit land.
13. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and made submission supporting the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court and would further submit that as both the Courts below have dismissed the 8 suit, therefore, there are concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, hence, it cannot be interfered with in second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.
14. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record.
15. Main challenge in the civil suit is to the registered sale deed dated 18.06.1976 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Rambharosa.
16. Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to discuss about the nature of property and extent of ownership right of seller namely Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. In the plaint plaintiff has pleaded that land was owned and recorded in name of Sunder Lal, who died in or about 1950. After death of Sunderlal, it came in possession and ownership of Sukharani @ Sukhdaiya Bai (widow). Suit is filed on the ground that sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 to be without knowledge of executant and taking undue advantage of illiterate lady. Under the Evidence Act, it is a presumption that registered sale deed is validly executed. The burden lies on the person alleging fraud to prove that the registered sale deed was got executed through fraudulent means. Plaintiff Ganesh Jaiswal is examined as (P.W.-2) and from his evidence it is appearing that initially suit was filed by his mother Ghuriya Bai and defendant No.1 is also son of Ghuriya Bai. He admitted that he is not aware that after death of her maternal grand father, name of Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai alone was mutated in revenue records. He also admitted that Ghuriya Bai has executed one Will in which there is no mention of land, subject matter of sale deed 9 executed in favour of defendant No.1. He shown his unawareness as to whether on the date of execution of sale deed, her maternal grand mother went to the office of Registrar or not and also admitted that at the time of execution of sale deed, officers present in the Registrar office used to ask about payment of sale consideration. In his evidence, he also shown his unawareness about execution of other sale deed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Tukaram in the year 1981, Sahdev in the year 1985 and Moolshankar in the year 1990. He also admitted that he do not know if the defendant No.1 has paid sale consideration to Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in Registrar's office. He also admitted that in the sale deed of the year 1976 (Ex.P-
1), it is mentioned that part of payment has been received mutually and Rs.2,400/- has to be paid in the office of Registrar. It is also admission on the part of this witness in para-15 that during lifetime of Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai, she has not made any complaint about non-payment of sale consideration or non-execution of sale deed.
17. Lallu Prasad Jaiswal (P.W.-3), who is son of another sister of Ghuriya Bai and aunt of Ganesh Jaiswal has stated in his evidence that in the year 1976, he was residing in part of the house known as Three Kholis. Out of Three Kholis/rooms, he was residing in one along with her mother and sister. In one part, her maternal grand mother Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai along with his aunt Mantora Bai, daughter of Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai were residing. At the time of execution of sale deed, he was working as Assistant Professor in Balodabazar. He has also shown his unawareness that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai has sold the lands through three different sale deed in the year 1981, 10 1986 and 1990. He also stated that he is not aware if defendant No.1 has paid sale consideration to Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai.
18. There is presumption on the genuineness of registered documents.
The same is presumed to be valid, until presumption is rebutted by strong evidence to be led by respondents. Onus to prove that registered document has been executed by fraud or undue influence is upon the party, who assert the same. To establish the alleged fraud, it has to be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases was extremely high. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah, (2004) 8 SCC 588 has held as under :-
5. ........Fraud is to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases is extremely higher. An ambiguous statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation."
19. In case of Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, (2023) 8 SCC 410, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registration of document and its recitals were presumed to be valid, unless such presumption was rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary. Once the registering 11 authority accepts the documents for registration, it becomes prima- facie evidence that conditions required for such registration had been satisfied and burden of proving any alleged infirmity rests on the person who challenges the registration.
"79. It is trite that registration of a document is a solemn act of parties and the recitals of a registered document are presumed to be valid unless such a presumption is rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary, vide Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434] . This is because, as already stated, the document speaks for itself.
80. In Chhotey Lal v. Collector of Moradabad [Chhotey Lal v. Collector of Moradabad, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 48 : (1921-22) 49 IA 375 : AIR 1922 PC 279] the Privy Council considered the question as to the presumption of validity of a power of attorney which formed the basis of a registered mortgage deed which was later challenged. The Privy Council noted that since the Sub-
Registrar had accepted the document for registration, it is prima facie evidence that the conditions have been satisfied and after registration of the document, the burden of proving any alleged infirmity rests on the person who challenges the registration.
81. Similarly, in Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh [Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, (1970) 2 SCC 386] , this Court reiterated the legal position as to the presumption of regularity of official acts, and held that it would be presumed that a Sub-Registrar registering a document would have proceeded with the registration only on satisfying himself as to the fact that the person who was executing the document was the proper person.
* * * 12
83. In short, it has been authoritatively laid down by this Court that a registered document carries with it, by virtue of it being registered, the presumption as to the authority of the person executing it. In the present case, the trial court and the first appellate court failed to treat the endorsement made by the District Sub-Registrar on the body of sale deed, as evidence in respect of the authority of Plaintiff 2 to execute sale deed. This is to be considered in light of the fact that at no point of time did the original owner, namely, Braja Mohan Dey dispute the execution of power of attorney in favour of Plaintiff
2."
20. In case at hand, the sale deed in question is said to have been executed on 18.06.1976. Seller of property Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai, during her lifetime has not challenged or questioned the execution of sale deed, who died in the year 1993.
21. Plaintiff in her plaint has pleaded that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai was having more affection towards Rambharosa, defendant No.1 and was looking after her property on his advice. It is also pleaded that defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of advanced age and physical weakness have got the sale deed executed without any sale consideration. In written statement, defendant No.1 has pleaded that sale deed was executed in his favour because owner of the property, her maternal grand mother was in need of money.
22. Ganesh Jaiswal (P.W.-2) in para 13 of his evidence stated that Sukhrani Bai sold her other properties in favour of Tukaram in the year 1981, Sahdev in the year 1985 and Moolshankar in the year 1990. This witness has further stated that he was not present in the Registrar's office in the year 1976. He also admitted that if defendant 13 No.1 had paid the sale consideration to the seller Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in Registrar's office to which he is not aware. He also stated according to contents of sale deed, total sale consideration was Rs.4400/- of which Rs.2000/- has been transacted between them and Rs.2400/- is to be paid in office of Registrar at the time of registration. He also admitted that death of Sukhrani was in the year 1991. From the aforementioned evidence, it is apparent that plaintiffs have filed suit under apprehension that sale deed got to be executed by defendants by taking undue advantage of advance age of seller Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai but have not proved it by placing cogent evidence on record. The issue of getting the sale deed registered by undue influence came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jamila Begum v. Shami Mohd., (2019) 2 SCC 727 and it is observed in para-28 as under :-
"28. Insofar as the plea of undue influence, merely because the parties are related to each other or merely because the executant was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise. The court must scrutinise the pleadings to find out that such plea has been made out before examining whether undue influence was exercised or not."
23. In case at hand, there is no pleading or evidence that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya on the date of execution of alleged sale deed (Ex.P-1) was not in a position to understand or so infirm that she could be dominated by defendant who is maternal grand child of her, more so, when undisputedly plaintiff, mother of defendant No.1 along with other children is residing with Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai and their children 14 were also residing in part of the house owned by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai.
24. The finding of valid execution of sale deed arrived at by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court is on proper appreciation of evidence. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both Courts. The finding arrived by the Courts below in the facts of the case cannot be said to be perverse to the evidence available on record, therefore, this Court will not interfere with such findings.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna Chetty reported in AIR 1996 SC 3521, has held that interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below by the High Court under Section 100 of CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the Lower Court. Even assuming that another view is possible on re-appreciation of the same evidence that should not have been done by the High Court, as it cannot be said that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was based on no material.
26. In case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors v. Kaki & Ors, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 54, which is as under:-
"54. In the same case, this Court observed that in a case where special leave petition was filed against a judgment of the High Court interfering with findings of fact of the lower appellate court. This Court observed that to say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law 15 to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. This Court further observed that the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible."
27. In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Shiv Dayal and Another, Reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 14, 15 & 16 as under:-
"14. True it is as has been laid down by this Court in several decisions that "concurrent finding of fact" is usually binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). However, this rule of law is subject to certain well-known exceptions mentioned infra.
15. It is a trite law that in order to record any finding on the facts, the trial court is required to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the light of the pleadings of the parties. Similarly, it is also a trite law that the appellate court also has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence de novo while hearing the first appeal and either affirm the finding of the trial court or reverse it. If the appellate court affirms the finding, it is called "concurrent finding of fact" whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reversing finding". These expressions are well known in the legal parlance.
16. 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 dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the 16 decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (See observation made by learned Judge, Vivian Bose, J., as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar [Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar, 1942 SCC OnLine MP 26 : AIR 1943 Nag 117] para 43.)"
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbiri Devi and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1322 while reiterating the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Dayal and Another (supra), has held that interference with the concurrent findings in subsequent appeal can be made if it is pointed out that it has been passed dehors the pleadings or based on no evidence or based on misreading of material evidence or against the provision of law etc.
29. Both the Courts below have also dismissed the suit on limitation. As learned trial Court as also the First Appellate Court have dismissed the suit on merits and this Court in preceding paragraph while considering the case on merits have arrived at a conclusion that finding recorded by both the Courts below that sale deed was validly executed by Sukhrani in favour of defendant No.1 to be correct.
30. In the above facts of the case, even if the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned Courts below erred in dismissing the suit on limitation then also it will not change the result of the case that plaintiff failed to prove the pleadings made in the suit of getting the sale deed executed by undue influence. Therefore, I am not dealing with the said issue and thereby affirming the finding recorded by the both the Courts below.
17
31. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
32. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram