[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Durga Prasad vs Pardesi on 6 April, 2026
1
SOURABH
2026:CGHC:15600
BHILWAR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH
BHILWAR
NAFR
Date: 2026.04.07
15:28:58 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 344 of 2024
Durga Prasad S/o Lakhanlal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jamha,
Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.).....(Appellant / Plaintiff)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Pardesi S/o Late Anujram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Dabri,
Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
2 - Bhurwa S/o Late Anujram Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Dabri,
Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
3 - Mongra Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated
24-03-2026.
4 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village
Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
5 - Sunil Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village
Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
2
6 - Yogesh Kumar S/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village
Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
7 - Ku. Savita D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
Dabri, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
8 - Ku. Kavita D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 13 Years Through Legal
Guardian Mother Mongra Bai W/o Late Rajkumar, R/o Village Dabri,
Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
9 - Ku. Sulekha D/o Late Rajkumar Aged About 11 Years Through Legal
Guardian Mother Mongra Bai W/o Late Rajkumar, R/o Village Dabri,
Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
10 - Parwati Bai D/o Late Rajkumar , W/o Rajesh Aged About 20 Years
R/o Village Dashrangpur (Chaarbhata), Tahsil Pandariya, District
Kabirdham (C.G.)
11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
.... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate
For Private Respondents : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate
For Respondent/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
06/04/2026
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/
plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.04.2024
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mungeli, District
Mungeli (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/2023 (Pardeshi & Ors. vs.
Durga Prasad & Anr.), whereby the Appellate Court by reversing
the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Class-I, Mungeli (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.53-A/2016
(Durga Prasad vs. Pardeshi & Ors.), has allowed the appeal
preferred by the defendants, which had earlier decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter-claim of the
defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall
hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title and
permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit land situated
at village Jamha, P.H. No. 51, Circle and District Mungeli, bearing
Khasra Nos. 161/2 admeasuring 0.202 hectare, 161/4
admeasuring 0.012 hectare, 330/2 admeasuring 0.032 hectare,
372/3 admeasuring 1.626 hectare and 437/9 admeasuring 0.149
hectare, total admeasuring 2.021 hectares (hereinafter referred to
as the 'suit land'), originally belonged to deceased Sukhni Bai,
who remained in possession thereof during her lifetime. The
plaintiff, being her grandson, was brought up by her like a son
and, being pleased with his services, she executed a Will dated
09.02.2015 in his favour and had also handed over possession of
the suit land to him in presence of panchas on 08.02.2015. After
her death on 15.02.2015, the plaintiff performed her last rites and,
on the basis of the said Will, got his name mutated in the revenue
records vide order dated 13.01.2016, to which no objection was
raised by the defendants at that time. Subsequently, the
defendants, claiming themselves to be the descendants of the
sister of the deceased Sukhni Bai, preferred an appeal before the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Mungeli, which was allowed by setting
aside the mutation order vide order dated 30.06.2016, which is
stated to be illegal and the defendants have no right, title or
interest over the suit land and the plaintiff has been in continuous
possession for the last 25-30 years, and therefore, he is entitled
to declaration of title and permanent injunction.
3. Per contra, defendant Nos. 1 to 10, in their written statement-cum-
counter claim, while vehemently denying the averments made in
the plaint, have pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to
Hirau Satnami, who inherited the same jointly along with his
sisters Ghasnin Bai and Bisahin Bai from their father Dukalha,
and after the death of Ghasnin Bai, her share devolved upon
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased Rajkumar, whose legal
heirs are defendant Nos. 3 to 10. It is contended that the
defendants are in joint possession of the suit land and the alleged
Will set up by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. The order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer setting aside the mutation
has attained finality and the present suit is based on false claims.
It is further pleaded in the counter claim that since Sukhni Bai died
issueless, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, being the sons of the sister of
her deceased husband Hirau, along with defendant Nos. 3 to 10
as legal heirs of Rajkumar, are entitled to inherit the property
under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, and
accordingly, they have sought declaration of their title, partition
and separate possession along with permanent injunction.
Defendant No. 11/State has been proceeded ex parte.
4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned
Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the
counter-claim filed by the defendants, holding that the plaintiff has
established his claim over the suit property. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree dated 29/11/2022, the defendants 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, reversed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court
and allowed the appeal in favour of the defendants vide impugned
judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First
Appellate Court is wholly illegal, arbitrary and perverse, being
contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He submits
that the learned Appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff and
has erroneously reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the
learned Trial Court, which had rightly decreed the suit. Learned
counsel further submits that the Will dated 09.02.2015 (Ex. P/1),
executed by deceased Sukhni Bai in favour of the plaintiff, has
been duly proved in accordance with law, particularly in terms of
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, by examining the attesting
witnesses, and there is no material on record to hold the same as
forged or invalid. Learned counsel would contend that the suit
property was the self-acquired property of Sukhni Bai, who was in
a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the
Will, and no evidence has been led by the defendants to establish
otherwise. He also contends that the learned Appellate Court has
ignored material admissions of witnesses and has failed to
consider that the plaintiff, on the basis of the valid Will, is the
exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and, therefore,
entitled to declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and decree
of the learned First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside.
6. 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.
7. In the present case, it is evident that the learned Trial Court failed
to properly appreciate the material contradictions and surrounding
circumstances relating to the execution of the alleged Will dated
09.02.2015, particularly the inconsistencies in the statements of
attesting witnesses and the doubtful manner in which the
document came into existence. In contrast, the learned First
Appellate Court, upon a thorough and comprehensive re-
appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly held that
the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Appellate
Court has taken note of the fact that just a day prior to the alleged
Will, a document resembling relinquishment was executed citing
serious illness of the testatrix, and yet, on the very next day, she
is stated to have travelled for execution of the Will, which renders
the transaction doubtful. The contradictions in the testimony of the
attesting witnesses, absence of reliable proof of due execution,
and the active role of the beneficiary in preparation of the
document have been rightly considered to disbelieve the Will.
8. The learned First Appellate Court has further rightly observed that
where a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the
burden lies heavily upon the propounder to dispel such suspicion
by cogent and reliable evidence. In the present case, the plaintiff
has failed to satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies and
suspicious features, including the doubtful presence of the
testatrix at the time of execution, the non-registration despite
availability of the registering authority, and material contradictions
in the evidence of witnesses. The Appellate Court has thus
correctly held that the will (Ex. P/1) is not proved in accordance
with law and cannot be made the basis for claiming exclusive title
over the suit property. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere
with the same under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
9. It is to be noted that the scope of interference in a Second Appeal
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly
confined to examination of substantial questions of law. Even in a
case where the First Appellate Court has reversed the findings
recorded by the Trial Court, interference is permissible only when
the findings of the First Appellate Court are shown to be perverse,
based on no evidence, suffering from material irregularity, or
involving a substantial error of law affecting the rights of the
parties. Unless such infirmities are demonstrated, the findings of
fact recorded by the First Appellate Court are binding in Second
Appeal.
10. In the present case, the learned First Appellate Court, after due
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence available on record,
recorded findings that the plaintiff failed to established his case.
The Appellate Court has correctly evaluated the evidence and
arrived at a conclusion consistent with law.
11. The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal
essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to
the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court. Such
questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within
the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless
it is shown that the findings are perverse or based on misreading
of evidence.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of
the record of the case, 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 the learned First Appellate Court
appears 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 it does not call
for any interference.
13. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed,
resulting in upholding the judgment and decree of the First
Appellate Court.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
$. Bhilwar
