[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Paras Ram (Since Dead) Legal ... vs Mani Das on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14745
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 98 of 2019
1 - Paras Ram (Since Dead) Legal Representatives Through (A) Ram Lal Aged
RAHUL About 55 Years Through Legal Representives
JHA 1.1 - (A) Ram Lal S/o Late Paras Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Village
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA
Date: 2026.04.01
13:39:23 +0530
Tundari Moharpara, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
1.2 - (B) Hori Lal S/o Late Paras Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Tundari Moharpara, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
1.3 - (C) Sani S/o Late Paras Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Tundari
Moharpara, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodabazar Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
1.4 - (D) Hem Bai D/o Late Paras Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village
Tundari Moharpara, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
2 - Badrika Wd/o Hem Lal Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Tundari,
P.H.No.01,tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodbazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
3 - Parwati D/o Hem Lal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tundari,
P.H.No.01,tahsil Bilaigarh District Balodbazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
.Appellant(s)
Versus
2
1 - Mani Das S/o Sona Das Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Tundari, P.H.N.O
01 Tahsil Bilaigarh ,district Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Collector Balodabazar District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate
For Resp No.1. : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
30/03/2026
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendant, who is the appellant herein,
assailing the judgment and decree dated 14/11/2018 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 26A/2016 (Mani Das v. Paras Ram & Others) by the learned
II Additional District Judge, Bhalodabazar(C.G.). By the said impugned
judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred by the
plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) and set aside the judgment and decree
dated 22/06/2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2010 (Mani Das v.
Paras Ram & Others) by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Bhilaigarh
(C.G.).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as
per their status before the Trial Court.
3. (a) The plaintiff instituted the present civil suit against the defendants
seeking declaration of title, demolition of the house constructed over the
suit land, recovery of vacant possession, and permanent injunction. It is
the case of the plaintiff that he was granted land bearing Khasra No.
589/1/1, admeasuring 0.020 hectares, by order dated 04.06.1991 passed
by the Nayab Tahsildar, Bilaigarh in Revenue Case No. 0433/66 for the
year 1990-91, whereby he was conferred the status of Bhumiswami. It is
further pleaded that the Gram Panchayat, Dundri, had also allotted the
plaintiff an abadi plot bearing Khasra No. 589/1/ग, admeasuring
approximately 2½ decimals (33×33 sq. ft.), vide order dated 22.06.1989.
(b) On the same date, the plaintiff's elder brother, Laxmidas, was also
allotted a similar abadi plot in the same khasra number. It is pleaded that
the said Laxmidas subsequently transferred his rights, title, and
possession over his allotted portion in favour of the plaintiff, and thus,
the plaintiff became entitled to and came in possession of the entire land
measuring about 10 decimals (0.040 hectares) forming part of the suit
property. The plaintiff further pleaded that he intended to construct a
residential house over the said abadi land and had obtained necessary no-
objection from the Gram Panchayat. He also purchased construction
material, including stone, and fenced the entire land, thereby taking
possession and remaining in peaceful occupation thereof since the year
1991.
(c) It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 2007, the
defendants forcibly encroached upon the suit land and initially used the
same as a threshing floor (khalihan), and thereafter, despite objections
and complaints made by the plaintiff before the Gram Panchayat
authorities, proceeded to raise unauthorized construction of a house
consisting of four rooms over a portion of the suit land. According to the
plaintiff, repeated complaints were made to the Panchayat authorities,
but the defendants did not heed to such objections and completed
construction of a house measuring approximately 40 × 30 feet over the
suit land. The cause of action is stated to have arisen on 22.07.2007
when the defendants allegedly encroached upon the land and continued
thereafter. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purposes of court fee
and jurisdiction and has sought relief of declaration of title, demolition
of the unauthorized construction, and delivery of vacant possession of
the encroached portion of the suit land.
(d) The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement
and denied the plaint allegations in toto. It is contended that no
encroachment was made by them and that defendant No. 1 has been in
peaceful possession of the land for the last 30-40 years after
constructing a house thereon, without any objection from any person.
The defendants further pleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties, particularly the plaintiff's elder brother Laxmidas,
who was also allotted land and whose rights are involved. It is also
contended that the plaintiff has not properly described the alleged
encroachment and has undervalued the suit for the purposes of court fee.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed necessary
issues for adjudication and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff
failed to prove his title over the suit property, as the patta relied upon
conferred only a limited right of use and not ownership. It was further
held that the alleged relinquishment by the plaintiff's brother was not
legally proved for want of a registered document. The Trial Court also
held that the plaintiff failed to establish encroachment, as neither
demarcation was carried out nor the identity and extent of the
encroached land was proved. On the contrary, the evidence indicated that
the defendants were in long-standing possession and their construction
existed even prior to grant of patta to the plaintiff. It was also held that
the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the
suit was dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.
26-A/2018 before the learned District Judge, who, vide the impugned
judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018, allowed the appeal, set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, and decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had duly proved his title
over the suit property on the basis of the patta granted by the competent
authority and the revenue records wherein his name was recorded as
Bhumiswami. It was further held that the Trial Court committed legal
and factual error in discarding the documentary evidence adduced by the
plaintiff and in wrongly holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his
title. The First Appellate Court also found that the defendants had failed
to produce any documentary evidence in support of their possession and,
therefore, their plea of long possession was not reliable. Accordingly, the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside and the plaintiff's
suit was decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Second
Appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court
has committed grave illegality in allowing the appeal without proper
appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record. It is contended that the
Appellate Court failed to consider the specific objections raised by the
defendants, including non-joinder of a necessary party, namely Laxmi
Prasad (elder brother of the plaintiff), improper valuation of the suit, and
insufficient court fee. It is further submitted that the defendants have
been in long-standing possession over the land for the last 30-40 years
and had already constructed a house thereon much prior to the grant of
patta in favour of the plaintiff, which aspect has not been duly
considered. It is also argued that the First Appellate Court erred in
recording findings regarding title and alleged encroachment without
proper appreciation of evidence and in absence of proper demarcation of
the suit land, thereby rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in
law. Learned counsel further submits that the land over which the
plaintiff has claimed title is not the same land over which the defendants
are in possession; however, this ground was not raised before the Trial
Court or the First Appellate Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the question of
admission and have carefully perused the impugned judgments and
decrees passed by both the Courts as well as the material available on
record.
8. At the outset, it is to be noted that the scope of interference in a Second
Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to
substantial questions of law. Even where the First Appellate Court has
reversed the findings of the Trial Court, interference is warranted only if
such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from a
substantial error of law.
9. In the present case, the First Appellate Court has recorded a categorical
finding that the plaintiff has established his title over the suit property on
the basis of the patta granted by the competent authority and the revenue
records wherein his name is duly recorded. The said finding is based on
proper appreciation of documentary evidence and does not suffer from
any perversity so as to warrant interference.
10. So far as the contention regarding long possession of the defendants is
concerned, the same has rightly been disbelieved by the First Appellate
Court in absence of any cogent documentary evidence. Mere oral
assertions of long possession, without any supporting material, cannot
defeat the title established by the plaintiff through revenue records.
11. The contention regarding non-joinder of necessary party and improper
valuation of the suit has also been duly considered by the First Appellate
Court and no material illegality has been demonstrated in the findings
recorded thereon. The additional ground raised by the appellant
regarding identity of the land, not having been raised before the Courts
below, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in Second
Appeal. It is also noteworthy that the defendants themselves have never
pleaded, either in the written statement or at any stage before the Courts
below, that the land in their possession is different from the suit land,
and no such contention was ever put forth during trial. Hence, the said
plea is clearly an afterthought and cannot be entertained at this stage.
12. Upon overall consideration of the matter, it is evident that the findings
recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on proper appreciation of
evidence and correct application of legal principles. The appellant has
failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or substantial question of
law arising in the present appeal.
13. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in
this Second Appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of
admission itself. No order as to costs.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Rahul/Gowri
