Chattisgarh High Court
Faguram Yadav vs Kalyan Singh on 25 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14310
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2026.03.25
17:51:04
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 427 of 2016
Faguram Yadav S/o Sidhwa Yadav, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh
.. Appellant
versus
1 - Kalyan Singh S/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali,
Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
1.1 - Sanat S/o Vishnu Sahu R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil- Lormi,
District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.2 - Sarojani D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.3 - Kamla Bai W/o Vishnu Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.4 - Sharad S/o Vishnu Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.5 - Shyam Bai D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.6 - Champa Bai D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali,
Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
1.7 - Kailash S/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District- Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh ................Defendants,
--- Respondents
____________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lekhram Dhruw, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 25.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant namely; Faguram, who is the son of original plaintiff namely; Sidhwa Ram, challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 16/06/2016 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.31A/2015 (Faguram Yadav Vs Kalyan Singh & Ors) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23/07/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Lormi, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.20A/2009 (Sidhwa Ram Yadav Vs. Maniram & Ors) . For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking for possession of the land and for permanent injunction with respect to the land bearing Khasra No. 255/2, measuring 0.04 acres, situated in Village Chandli, Patwari Halka No. 7, R.I. Circle and Tehsil Lormi, District Bilaspur, as described in Schedule "A" annexed to the plaint, pleading inter alia that the plaintiff, Sidhwa, purchased the disputed land along with other lands, namely Khasra Nos. 311, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, and 412, having respective areas of 0.84, 0.08, 0.33, 0.15, 1.34, 0.65, and 0.35 acres (total 3.72 acres), from Smt. Chitrautin Bai, w/o Parsadi Lal, by a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1965 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. 3 After the purchase, the plaintiff's name was duly recorded as the owner in the revenue records, and since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and cultivation of the said lands as their lawful owner. Out of the aforesaid lands, the defendant, by deceit and conspiracy, in the year 1980 falsely declared the plaintiff to be dead and, in collusion with revenue officials, submitted an application. By misrepresenting that notice had been duly served upon the legal heirs of the plaintiff, the defendant managed to get an ex parte order passed and got his own name recorded as the owner of the disputed land in the revenue records. Upon gaining knowledge of this fact, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Lormi. The Sub-Divisional Officer decided in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the deletion of the defendant's name from the revenue records of the disputed land. Consequently, the plaintiff's name was restored in the revenue records. It was further pleaded that on 01.02.2006, the defendant forcibly took possession of the disputed land and started construction of a house thereon without having any lawful title or authority over the said land.
3. The defendant in his written statement, denied all the plaint averments. He submitted that he has no knowledge of the plaintiff having purchased a total of 3.72 acres of land from Chitrautin Bai on 12.10.1965 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. In fact, the land bearing Khasra No. 255, admeasuring 0.04 acres, was purchased by the defendant from Chitrautin Bai on 18.01.1963. 4 Thereafter, Chitrautin Bai handed over possession of the said land to the defendant, who has been in continuous possession since 1963 after constructing a house and a kitchen garden (badi) over it. Thus, the defendant is in possession of his own land. The defendant asserts that he has not encroached upon any land belonging to the plaintiff. He further denied having committed any fraud or having got the disputed land mutated in his name in the year 1980 by falsely declaring the plaintiff to be dead. It is also stated that the defendant did not take possession of the disputed land on 01.02.2006, nor is he carrying out any construction over the said land.
4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, as well as the material available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 255, admeasuring 0.04 acres, situated in Village Chandli, Tehsil Lormi, was purchased by the original plaintiff from Smt. Chitrautin Bai along with other lands through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1965. However, no explanation has been offered by the plaintiff, either in the pleadings or during the course of evidence, as to how Khasra No. 255 came to be recorded as 255/2. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No. 1 fraudulently got his name recorded as the owner of the disputed land in the revenue records by falsely declaring the plaintiff to be dead and 5 in collusion with the revenue authorities. It has been proved in the suit that the claim filed by the plaintiff was barred by the principle of res judicata.
5. Against the said judgment and decree, the son of the original plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal before the learned Appellate Court who by the judgment and decree impugned, dismissed the Civil Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court failed to carefully examine the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence adduced in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Chitrautin Bai through a registered sale deed. The respondents did not present any evidence or documents before the subordinate court, yet the subordinate court rejected it on the principle of res judicata. The respondents have not proven how or on what basis their names were recorded on the suit property. Despite this, the trial Court passed the order impugned which is not just and proper. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff be allowed, and the order impugned may liable to be set aside.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the material available on record.
8. In the present case, Defendant-Kalyan Singh, in written 6 statement submitted that with respect to the disputed land, the original plaintiff had previously filed a civil suit bearing No. 11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs. Maniram) against the original defendant. The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide judgment dated 14.10.1997. However, the plaintiff, by concealing these true facts, has filed the present claim again on false grounds, which is not maintainable. In this regard, Defendant also submitted a certified copy of the judgment dated 14.10.1997 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs. Maniram), which was exhibited as Document Ex. D-1.
9. After examining the pleadings and evidence, this Court finds that the plaintiff purchased the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 255, admeasuring 0.04 acres, situated in Village Chandli, Tehsil Lormi, from Smt. Chitrautin Bai through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1965; however, the plaintiff has failed to explain how the land came to be recorded as Khasra No. 255/2 and has also not proved the allegation that Defendant fraudulently recorded his name in the revenue records. It is further established that the plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs. Maniram) on the same cause of action, which was dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 14.10.1997, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex. D-1. In view of these facts, the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata, and the plaintiff has failed 7 to establish any right, title, or interest in the disputed land.
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 appellant/plaintiff failed to establish its 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. 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 8 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 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 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, 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 appellant herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned First appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Amardeep