[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jagdamba Prasad vs Ishwar Farmaniya on 13 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:16827
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 416 of 2020
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY Jagdamba Prasad S/o Kishanlal Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years
Digitally signed by
AMARDEEP
CHOUBEY
Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil And P.S. Pendra,
Date: 2026.04.15
10:45:20 +0530 District Bilaspur Now Gaurela Pendra Marwahi (Chhattisgarh),
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Ishwar Farmaniya S/o Banarasidas Farmaniya, Aged About 62
Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil And P.S.
Pendra, District Bilaspur Now Gaurela Pendra Marwahi
Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Kishanlal Agrawal, Aged About 70 Years
Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil And P.S. Pendra,
District Bilaspur Now Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Durga Prasad, S/o Kishanlal Agrawal, Aged About 62 Years
Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Pendra, Tahsil And P.S. Pendra,
District Bilaspur Now Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Now Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
____________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi , Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy.G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
13.04.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the
appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree
dated 04/03/2020 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Pendra Road, Dist: Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Appeal
No.10A/2019 (Jagdamba Prasad Vs Ishwar Farmaniya & Ors)
arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26/10/2018 passed
by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, C.G. in Civil
Suit No.122A/2005 (Jagdamba Prasad Vs Ishwar Farmaniya &
Ors).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per
their status before the learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking for declaration of title and
permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the land situated in
Village Pendra, Patwari Halka No. 26, R.I. Circle Pendra, Tehsil
Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), bearing Khasra No.
2054/1, area 9.10 acres, is the ancestral property of the plaintiff.
The said land was recorded in the revenue records in the name
of the plaintiff's father (Defendant No. 2) as the landowner.
Defendant No. 2, Kishanlal Agrawal (father of the plaintiff), had
executed a family settlement deed on 09/08/1967 and got it
registered, thereby transferring the said land to the plaintiff. At
that time, the plaintiff was a minor. His grandmother, Smt. Singari
Bai, acted as his guardian and took possession of the land on his
behalf. After attaining majority, the plaintiff has continued to
remain in ownership and possession of the suit land. Defendant
No. 2 had no right to sell the suit land, but on 18/10/2002, he sold
a portion of the land (Khasra No. 2054/1, area 0.72 acres) to
Defendant No.1. In the said sale deed, the market value is shown
as ₹1,92,500, whereas the actual value is more than ₹15,00,000.
Proper consideration was not paid, and the sale deed is merely a
nominal and fraudulent document, hence Defendant No. 1 does
not acquire any valid title. On 10/06/2004, Defendant No. 1
started demolishing the wall constructed on the suit land under
the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and illegally got his
name recorded in the revenue records.
4. (a) The defendant No. in his written statement, denied all the
plaint averments. He submitted that the disputed land belonged
to Defendant No. 2, Kishanlal. In the presence of his sons i.e. the
plaintiff Jagdamba Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad, and Durgaprasad,
a deal for the sale of the suit land was made and the land was
lawfully sold to Defendant No.1. On 17/10/2002, after receiving
the full sale consideration, a registered sale deed was duly
executed in favor of Defendant No. 1, and possession of the land
was also properly handed over to him. The alleged family
settlement deed executed in favor of the plaintiff is stated to be
forged, and no demolition of any wall belonging to the plaintiff
took place on the disputed land. Rather, the disputed land is
under the ownership and possession of Defendant No. 1 himself.
He submitted that due to the increase in the value of the disputed
land, the plaintiff has filed this suit by relying on fabricated facts.
(b) Defendant No. 1 has also submitted that on 16/10/2002, all
the concerned persons appeared before the Sub-Registrar Office
at Pendra Road. The contents of the written stamp document
were read by Defendant No. 2 in the presence of his sons and
witnesses. Defendant No. 2 himself presented it before the Sub-
Registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar also read out the
contents of the document to all the persons present, and upon
their consent, instructed his subordinate staff to affix the
necessary seal and signatures at the appropriate places. After
completion of all formalities, the registration process was
completed, a receipt of registration fees was issued, and the
signatures of the seller (Defendant No. 2) were obtained. Entries
of signatures and thumb impressions were also made in the
office register. After registration of the sale deed, an affidavit was
also executed by Defendant No. 2 before a notary in favor of
Defendant No. 1, in which his son Durgaprasad acted as the
identifier.
5. 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
in the presence of witnesses, and upon receipt of consideration,
Defendant No. 2 executed a registered sale deed on 17/10/2002
in favor of Defendant No. 1 at the Sub-Registrar Office, Pendra
Road, in the presence of his sons and witnesses. In this regard,
as per paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the plaintiff's witness,
Lalchand Vaishya, he stated that at the time of execution of the
sale deed dated 18/10/2002 in favor of Defendant No. 1, he was
present in the registration office along with the witnesses
Ramniwas Tiwari and Satyanarayan Tiwari. According to him, the
plaintiff's father, Shri Kishanlal Agrawal, had agreed to execute a
nominal sale deed without receiving consideration and without
delivering possession of the suit land, merely to fulfill the needs
of Defendant No.1. However, as per the sale deed dated
18/10/2002 (Exhibit P-04), the amount of consideration is clearly
mentioned, and it is also recorded that possession was delivered
to the purchaser. Therefore, the oral testimony of the plaintiff's
witness Lalchand Vaishya cannot be accepted in this regard.
6. Against the said judgment and decree, the 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.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate and examine the
documentary as well as oral evidence on record. It is further
submitted that both the Courts below have erred in holding that
the sale deed dated 18/10/2002 executed by Defendant No. 2 in
favour of Defendant No. 1 was merely a nominal document and
not binding on the plaintiff, despite the existence of a registered
family settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the
same property, to which the plaintiff was not a party (Ex. P-4). It
is further contended that both the Courts have wrongly held that
the plaintiff has no right over the suit land, notwithstanding the
execution of a registered family arrangement/gift deed (Exhibit P-
3A) in his favour by his father, Kishanlal (Defendant No. 2).
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the
material available on record.
9. In the present case, the plaintiff relies upon a family settlement
deed dated 09/06/1967 (Exhibit P-3) to claim ownership over the
suit land. However, even assuming its execution, the plaintiff has
failed to establish any subsequent steps taken to mutate his
name in the revenue records or to assert uninterrupted legal title
in accordance with law, which casts serious doubt on his
exclusive ownership claim. Further, the plaintiff's own conduct is
inconsistent with his pleaded case. During the pendency of the
suit, 11 decimals of land from Khasra No. 2054/1 were sold to
Rajkumar Agrawal under a registered sale deed dated
25/11/2008, in respect of which the plaintiff admittedly gave his
consent and signed as a consenting party. Such conduct is
wholly inconsistent with the assertion that he had exclusive
ownership and possession over the entire suit land by virtue of
the alleged settlement deed. Moreover, the plaintiff's contention
that the sale deed dated 18/10/2002 (Exhibit P-4) executed by
Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 was a nominal
transaction without consideration or delivery of possession
cannot be accepted.
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
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
