Gopal (Died) Through His Legal Heir vs Basant Lal
2026 Latest Caselaw 1000 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Gopal (Died) Through His Legal Heir vs Basant Lal on 25 March, 2026

                                                    1




                                                                       2026:CGHC:14315
       Digitally
       signed by
       JYOTI
JYOTI  SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
       2026.03.27
       10:38:48
                                                                                NAFR
       +0530



                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                          SA No. 368 of 2018

                    1. Gopal (Died)

                    (A) Om Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 46 Years R/o
                    Ward No. 12 Kol Para Sonhat District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.,
                    District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

                    (B) Ram Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 42 Years R/o
                    Ward No. 6 Thakur Para, Sonhat , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

                    (C) Shri Prakash Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 43 Years R/o
                    Village Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur , District Surajpur
                    Chhattisgarh.

                    (D) Raju Prasad Kashi S/o Late Gopal Aged About 44 Years R/o
                    Village Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur , District Surajpur
                    Chhattisgarh.

                    (E) Narad Kumar S/o Late Gopal Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
                    Govindpur Alias Piduwa, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

                    (F) Smt. Kushum Bai W/o Ram Kumar (D/o Late Gopal) Aged About
                    47 Years R/o Village Mashira, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur
                    Chhattisgarh.

                    (G) Smt. Shanti Bai W/o Late Gopal Aged About 59 Years R/o
                    Village Govindpur Alias Surajpur , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
                                                                      ... Appellant(s)
                                                 versus

                    1. Basant Lal S/o Late Shri Bandhura, Aged About 47 Years Caste
                                  2


Kewat, Occupation Service, District And Session Judge
Baikunthpur, District Koriya , Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Lalli, Wd/o Kishun Ram, Aged About 55 Years D/o Late
Bandhuram, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Bhaiyathan, Police Station
And Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District :
Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

3. Ajay Kumar S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 45 Years Caste-
Kewat, R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat,
District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh

4. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 42 Years Caste
- Kewat, R/o Village - Ghummadand, Police Station And Tehsil
Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

5. Satish Kumar S/o Laxman Prasad, Aged About 36 Years Caste -
Kewat, R/o Village - Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

6. Smt. Aasha W/o Ramadhar, Aged About 33 Years D/o Laxman
Prasad, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Ramgarh, Police Station And
Tehsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya
(Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

7. Smt. Geeta W/o Ganesh, Aged About 30 Years D/o Laxman
Prasad, Caste Kewat, R/o Village Bhalumada (Peeli Dafai) District
Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh.

8. Smt. Lal Bai, W/o Kamla Prasad, Aged About 50 Years D/o Late
Bandhuram, Caste Kewat, R/o Nagpur (Tulsipara), Chowki Nagpur,
Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District :
Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

9. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baikunthpur District
Koriya, Chhattisgarh. (Defendants), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
                                                 ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate

For State : Mr. Malay Jain, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 25.03.2026

1. The plaintiffs/ appellants have preferred this second appeal

under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for

brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated

16.03.2018 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge,

(F.T.C.) Koriya Baikunthpur C.G. in Civil Appeal No.

07-A/2017 (Gopal Vs. Basant Lal & Ors.) affirming the

judgment and decree dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Trial

Court in Civil Suit No. 06-A/2016 (Gopal Vs. Basant Lal &

Ors. ) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit

of the plaintiff/ appellants. For the sake of convenience, the

parties would be referred as per their status before the

learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking confirmation of

possession over the house situated on land bearing Khasra

Nos. 381 and 382/2 admeasuring 0.02 and 0.01 hectare

respectively at village Sonhat, for partition of the land bearing

Khasra No. 293 admeasuring 0.125 hectare at Baikunthpur

and Khasra No. 801 admeasuring 2.00 hectares situated at

village Sonhat, and for a declaration that the Will dated

15.02.1993 is null and void, pleading inter alia that the

plaintiff Gopal and defendants No.1 to 4 are brother and

sisters and the children of late Bhagmania Bai. It was further

stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 204 admeasuring

0.223 hectare situated at village Dhauratikra had already

been sold to Sampat Sahu, and that Bhagmania Bai died on

08.04.2006.

3. According to the plaint, lands bearing Khasra Nos. 204 and

293 admeasuring 0.223 hectare and 0.125 hectare

respectively situated at village Dhauratikra, and lands bearing

Khasra Nos. 381, 382 and 801 admeasuring 0.02, 0.01 and

2.00 hectares respectively situated at village Sonhat were

recorded in the name of late Bhagmania Bai. During her

lifetime, she sold the land bearing Khasra No. 204

admeasuring 0.223 hectare at village Dhauratikra to Sampat

Sahu through a registered sale deed dated 11.02.1980. It was

further pleaded that Bhagmania Bai resided with the plaintiff

during her lifetime and that the house property bearing

Khasra No. 293 admeasuring 0.125 hectare at village

Dhauratikra was orally partitioned equally between the

plaintiff and defendant No.1 Basantlal. After the death of

Bhagmania Bai on 08.04.2006, a family arrangement dated

18.04.2006 was allegedly executed in the presence of

community members. The plaintiff has challenged the Will

dated 15.02.1993 said to have been executed by Bhagmania

Bai as false and fabricated on the ground that it mentions land

bearing Khasra No. 204, which had already been sold earlier

in the year 1980. It was further pleaded that on the basis of

the said Will, defendant No.1 initiated mutation proceedings

before the Naib Tahsildar, Baikunthpur and the Tahsildar,

Sonhat. The plaintiff also asserted that he continues to

remain in possession of the house and badi situated over the

land bearing Khasra Nos. 381 and 382 at village Sonhat and

had been residing there along with his mother during her

lifetime, while defendants No.2 to 4 had already received

gold, silver and money at the time of their marriage and

therefore had no claim over the suit properties. It was also

stated that the appeal against the order of the Tahsildar in

respect of the Sonhat land is pending before the Additional

Commissioner and the appeal against the order relating to the

Baikunthpur land is pending before the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Baikunthpur.s

4. Defendants No.1 to 4 filed their written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint and contended that late

Bhagmania Bai had self-acquired the lands situated at village

Sonhat, Baikunthpur and village Dhauratikra. It was admitted

that the land bearing Khasra No. 204 admeasuring 0.223

hectare had been sold to Sampat Sahu, but it was pleaded

that the said purchaser had not been impleaded as a party in

the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff Gopal, being

the eldest son, resides at village Govindpur, Tehsil Surajpur

and looks after the land situated there, and that the said

property has not yet been partitioned. According to the

defendants, late Bhagmania Bai used to reside at village

Sonhat and cultivate the land, while defendant No.1 used to

assist and support her. It was also pleaded that defendant

No.1, being employed at Baikunthpur, had constructed a

house on the land situated at Dhauratikra with the assistance

of his mother and was residing there. The defendants further

contended that in order to avoid future disputes, late

Bhagmania Bai had executed a Will dated 15.02.1993,

whereby the ancestral property was bequeathed to the

plaintiff Gopal and the remaining properties were bequeathed

to defendant No.1. It was further stated that despite having

full knowledge of the said Will after the death of Bhagmania

Bai, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on false and

baseless grounds, and therefore, the suit deserves to be

dismissed.

5. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the

oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the

learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff,

holding that the principal basis of the plaintiff's claim was the

alleged family arrangement/arrangement deed dated

18.04.2006 relating to partition of the properties, however, the

said document was neither produced nor proved before the

Court. It was further observed that even the photocopy of the

said document could not be admitted as secondary evidence,

as the document was in the nature of a partition deed which

required compulsory registration and was not registered.

Consequently, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to

establish the alleged arrangement.

6. On the other hand, the Trial Court found that the Will dated

15.02.1993 (Ex. D-1) executed by late Bhagmania Bai was a

registered document and its execution was duly proved

through the testimony of the attesting witness. The Court

observed that the plaintiff failed to establish that the said Will

was forged or fabricated. The contention of the plaintiff that

the Will was invalid on the ground that certain properties

mentioned therein were government land or had already been

sold earlier was also not substantiated by any reliable

evidence. The Trial Court further found that the plaintiff failed

to prove the alleged oral partition of the property bearing

Khasra No. 293 or his exclusive possession over the disputed

properties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

30.08.2016, the plaintiff 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, affirmed the

findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal

by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts

below have erred in law in dismissing the suit by placing

reliance on the alleged Will dated 15.02.1993, which

according to the appellant is forged and fabricated and

surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It is contended that

the defendant No.1, being the beneficiary of the Will, failed to

prove its due execution in accordance with the mandatory

requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and failed to

dispel the doubts regarding its genuineness. Learned counsel

further submits that the appellant had specifically challenged

the validity and authenticity of the Will and had discharged his

burden by pointing out the suspicious circumstances

surrounding its execution, however the Courts below failed to

properly appreciate the same and erroneously dismissed the

suit. It is also contended that the Courts below failed to

consider the Vyavastha Patra (family arrangement) relating to

partition of the property, which was a material document

supporting the case of the plaintiff, and therefore the

impugned judgments suffer from serious legal infirmity.

8. 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.

9. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions made

by learned counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the argument

advanced on the ground that the sanctity of the Will (Ex. D-1)

was not properly examined and that no issue in this regard

was framed is concerned, a perusal of the judgment of the

learned Trial Court reveals that a specific issue regarding the

validity and genuineness of the said Will had indeed been

framed and duly considered. Upon appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, the learned

Trial Court examined the said issue in accordance with law

and recorded a finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that

the Will in question was forged or concocted. Therefore, the

contention raised by the appellant in this regard does not

appear to have any substance.

10. Further, insofar as the Vyavastha Patra (family arrangement)

is concerned, it appears that the said document was the

subject matter of challenge in WPC No. 6834/2010, which

was decided on 22.07.2011. In the said proceedings, the

Court observed that the Vyavastha Patra was in the nature of

a partition deed and, in the absence of its registration, the

same could not be taken into consideration as admissible

evidence. It is also noteworthy that the said order has not

been challenged before any higher forum and has thus

attained finality. Consequently, the contention of the appellant

based on the said Vyavastha Patra cannot be accepted.

11. The learned First Appellate Court, after reappreciating the

evidence on record, affirmed the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The

Appellate Court observed that the principal foundation of the

plaintiff's claim was the alleged Vyavastha Patra dated

18.04.2006 relating to partition of the properties; however, the

said document was not brought on record and, in any case,

being in the nature of a partition deed, it required compulsory

registration and therefore could not be considered in

evidence in absence of registration. The Court further held

that the properties situated at village Sonhat and Dhauratikra

were the self-acquired properties of late Bhagmania Bai and

not ancestral properties of the parties, and therefore she was

competent to dispose of the same through a Will. The

execution of the Will dated 15.02.1993 (Ex. D-1) was found to

be duly proved through the testimony of the attesting witness,

who deposed that the Will was executed by Bhagmania Bai in

his presence and in the presence of another attesting

witness. The Appellate Court also held that the mere mention

of a previously sold property in the Will did not render the Will

suspicious, particularly when the testatrix was an illiterate

woman who had affixed her thumb impression. It was further

noticed that the parties also possessed ancestral land at

village Govindpur, Tehsil Surajpur, which was in possession

of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court

held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Will was

forged or fabricated and found no reason to interfere with the

findings recorded by the Trial Court.

12. 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.

13. 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 appellants/

plaintiffs failed to establish their case by placing cogent and

sufficient material. The appellants have failed to demonstrate

any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the

findings so recorded.