[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt.Gurubari Bai vs Smt.Mangali Bai And Ors on 30 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14733
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
NAFR
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2026.04.02
16:02:07
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 23 of 2015
Smt.Gurubari Bai W/o Late Jalndhar Aged About 46 Years R/o
Village- Bhursundi Chowki/tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G.,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt.Mangali Bai And Ors. W/o Jalndhar Aged About 45 Years R/o
Bhursundi, Presently R/o Village- Karmari School Para, Chowki
Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., Chhattisgarh
2 - Baldev S/o Sahdev Muriya Aged About 66 Years R/o Vilage-
Bhausundi Chowki Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
3 - Motilal S/o Cheranga Muriya Aged About 42 Years R/o Bhusundi
Chowki Bastar, Tah. Bastar, Distt. Bastar C.G., District :
Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
4 - Miss Guddi D/o Late Jalandhar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village-
Bharsundi, Presently R/o Karmari School Para Chowki/tah. Bastar,
2
Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
5 - State Of Chhattisgarh D/o Thru- Collector, Bastar Collector Office,
Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar C.G., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Akash Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
30.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the
appellant/defendant No. 1 challenging the impugned
judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Learned
First Additional District Judge, Bastar Distt- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in
Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2014 (Smt. Gurubai vs. Smt. Mangli Bai &
Others arising out of the judgment and decree dated
31.08.2013 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Class- I,
Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2012
(Smt. Mangla Bai vs. Gurubai & Others). For the sake of
convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status
before the learned trial Court.
2. The Civil suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the
defendants seeking a decree for possession to the extent of
1/4th share in the suit lands situated at Village Bhursundi,
Patwari Halka No. 32, R.N.M. Bastar, bearing Khasra Nos. 23,
52, 122, 126, 171, 211, 212, 27 and 87, admeasuring
respectively 0.31, 4.76, 0.41, 1.01, 0.19, 0.79, 0.89, 0.380 and
0.450 hectares, total Khasra Nos. 9, total area 9.190 hectares.
The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that she is the
legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and, on such basis, is
entitled to receive all death-cum-retiral dues including
pension, and compassionate appointment, on account of
death of her husband namely Jalandhar, who died in harness
while rendering the services in the Education Department.
3. (a) The brief facts are that the plaintiff, Mangli Bai, was
married to Late Jalandhar, son of Sahdev Muriya, around the
year 1987-88. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be the brother of
Late Jalandhar, and Defendant No. 3 is the son of Cherga, who
is the brother of Sahdev (father of Jalandhar). The plaintiff
submits that she resided in a joint family and, after a few
years of marriage, gave birth to Defendant No. 4, namely
Guddi. The suit properties are stated to be ancestral
properties. Additionally, it is averred that Late Jalandhar had
purchased certain lands out of his self-acquired income,
namely Khasra No. 124 admeasuring 0.270 hectares and
Khasra No. 249/100 admeasuring 0.610 hectares, total area
0.88 hectares, which have also been included in the suit
property. It is further stated that Late Jalandhar was employed
as a peon in a Government School and was transferred from
Bakawand to Chapka, where he died on 20th February 2006
due to paralysis.
(b) The plaintiff further submits that during the lifetime of
Late Jalandahr, she was subjected to harassment and physical
assault by him due to which she returned to her parental
home at Village Karmari, where she has been residing and
educating her daughter Guddi. It is further alleged that Late
Jalandhar came into contact with Defendant No. 1 and kept
her as his concubine at Village Chapka. After the death of Late
Jalandhar, Defendant No. 1, namely Guruvari Bai, without
informing Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the plaintiff, got the suit
lands mutated in her name and obtained compassionate
appointment as well as pension after the death of Jalandhar.
(c) The plaintiff contends that Defendant No. 1 has falsely
projected herself as the wife of Late Jalandhar. The plaintiff
has also referred to Revenue Case No. 24/3-6/08-09, wherein
she sought mutation of her name along with Defendant No. 4,
and states that the Tehsildar recorded the name of Defendant
No. 4. Further reference is made to Revenue Case No. 197/B-
121/08-09, order dated 20.05.2009, wherein Defendant No. 1
allegedly obtained a legal heir certificate on false grounds and
received death-cum-retiral dues, pension, and compassionate
appointment on account of death of Jalandhar.
4. (i) The Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and denied
that the plaintiff is the wife of Late Jalandhar or that any
marriage took place 25 years ago. She has also denied that
Defendant No. 4 is the only child of Late Jalandhar. Defendant
No. 1 has completely denied the status of the plaintiff as wife
in the genealogical tree. She has also denied possession of
the suit land by the defendants and stated that, apart from
her name, the names of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are also
recorded in the revenue records.
(ii) It is further submitted that being the legally wedded wife
of Late Jalandhar, she is entitled to and is receiving all
government dues and pension. She has contended that the
plaintiff had earlier applied for mutation as the biological
mother of Defendant No. 4, but the Tehsildar did not
recognize the plaintiff as the wife of Late Jalandhar.
Defendant No. 1 has further alleged that the plaintiff was
previously married to one Mukund, son of Lakhu, and due to
disputes, a criminal case bearing No. 149/1990 was
registered. Thereafter, the plaintiff allegedly lived as the wife
of one Budhru of Village Tetarguda and later with another
Budhru of Village Bharni.
(iii) On these grounds, Defendant No. 1 asserts that she is the
legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and has validly obtained
the legal heir certificate, government dues, and
compassionate appointment. She has further stated that the
plaintiff has been residing in Village Karmari from the
beginning. Hence, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for.
5. (A) The Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, file their written statement and
have admitted the facts stated in the plaint and supported the
case of the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff is the legally
wedded wife of Late Jalandhar. They have admitted the
existence of a joint family and correctness of the genealogical
tree, and have stated that Bhima, Sahdev, Gagra, Cherga, and
Jalandhar are deceased. It is further stated that though the
suit lands are presently recorded in the names of Defendant
Nos. 1, 2, and 4, but Defendant No. 1 has no right over the
same. They have also stated that the plaintiff and Defendant
No. 4 are cultivating approximately four acres of land, while
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are in possession of the remaining
portion.
(B) They have admitted that Late Jalandhar was employed in
the Education Department and died on 20th February 2006.
They further stated that due to disputes, the plaintiff started
residing in Village Karmari. They have accepted that the
plaintiff is the biological mother of Defendant No. 4 and the
legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar, and have alleged that
Defendant No. 1 was merely a concubine. It is further stated
that Defendant No. 1 got her name mutated without
informing the other defendants after the death of Late
Jalandhar. They have referred to the mutation of Defendant
No. 4's name based on the plaintiff's application and have
supported the plaintiff's claim, praying that she be declared
the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and be granted all
post-death benefits.
6. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after
framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment
and decree dated 31.08.2013 allowed the suit of the plaintiff
holding that that Mangli Bai proved herself to be the legally
wedded wife of late Jalandhar on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence, and Guddi was held to be their
legitimate daughter; the trial Court rejected Guruwari Bai's
claim as a second wife and denied her any legal status or
benefit, further holding that the alleged will was invalid for
non-compliance with legal requirements and that revenue
entries do not confer title, and accordingly declared that
Mangli Bai alone is entitled to the deceased's property,
pension, and other benefits, while treating the 2012 partition
order as void, and thus decreed the suit in favour of Mangli
Bai. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the defendant
has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree
by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings
recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court
holding that the plaintiff proved her marriage with late
Jalandhar are erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law,
as the alleged marriage has not been established in
accordance with the essential conditions prescribed under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any recognized custom. Mere
reliance on documents such as voter identity card and school
certificate is wholly insufficient to prove a valid marriage.
8. According to learned counsel the suit is barred by limitation,
no valid cause of action arose on 18.02.2010, and the suit has
not been properly valued. The evidence of defendant No. 2 to
4 is unreliable and cannot be read in favour of the plaintiff, as
it is contrary to their earlier stand, attracting the principle of
estoppel against both the plaintiff and the said defendants.
Moreover, oral evidence cannot override documentary
evidence in the present case. Lastly, it is contended that the
judgments passed by the trial court as well as the first
appellate court are non-speaking, perverse, and contrary to
settled principles of law, and therefore liable to be set aside.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the
material available on record.
10. The present second appeal arises against the concurrent
judgments and decrees passed by the learned Trial Court and
the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff
Mangli Bai has been decreed; upon perusal of the entire
record, this Court finds that both the learned courts have
meticulously appreciated the oral as well as documentary
evidence and have concurrently held that the plaintiff is the
legally wedded wife of late Jalandhar and that Guddi is their
legitimate daughter, which findings are duly supported by
reliable evidence including school records, voter identity
documents and consistent testimonies of witnesses; it is
further evident that the defendant Guruwari Bai has failed to
establish any valid marriage with the deceased or any legally
enforceable right, particularly in absence of any pleading or
proof of a custom permitting multiple marriages, and
therefore she cannot be accorded the status of a legally
recognized second wife; the learned trial Court as well as first
appellate Court have also rightly rejected the alleged will for
non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 63
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and have correctly held
that mutation entries do not confer title; this Court finds no
perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the findings so
recorded, which are pure findings of fact based on proper
appreciation of evidence; no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in the present second appeal under Section
100 of CPC.
7. 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.
8. 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/defendant
failed to establish their 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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. 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 appellants herein. The
judgments impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well
as First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no
illegality and infirmity at all.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib/Gowri
