[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ganesh Jaiswal vs Rambharos on 9 March, 2026

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                         1




                                                                         2026:CGHC:11284
                                                                                         NAFR
                               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                                 Reserved for Judgment On : 10.10.2025

                                                 Judgment Delivered On : 09/03/2026

                                                 Judgment Uploaded On : 09/03/2026


                                               SA No. 525 of 2019

                   1 - Ganesh Jaiswal S/o Late Gopi Jaiswal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bajrang
                   Chowk, Balodabazar, Tehsil- Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
                   Chhattisgarh.
                                                                         --- Appellant/Plaintiff
                                                     versus
                   1 - Rambharos S/o Late Gopi Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o Bajrang
                   Chowk, Balodabazar, Tehsil Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara,
                   Chhattisgarh.

                   2 - Mantora Bai Wd/o Motilal Jaiswal Aged About 70 Years R/o Beltara Via
                   Ratanpur, District- Bilapsur, Chhattisgarh.

                   3 - Durgibai Wd/o Durgaprasad Sahu R/o Lavanroad, Balodabazar, District-
                   Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                   4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balodabazar, District-
                   Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   --- Respondent(s)/Defendants

(Cause title is taken from CIS) ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate

For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Pushpkumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

CAV Judgment

1. This second appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the

legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated

14.03.2019, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar

in Civil Appeal No.71-A/2017, whereby learned 2nd Additional District

Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by appellant/plaintiff affirming the

judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017, passed in Civil Suit

No.81-A/2014, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I, Balodabazar

dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their

respective status before the trial Court.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff has filed a

civil suit for declaration and joint possession of suit property pleading

therein that property subject mater of the suit, description of which is

mentioned in Para-2 of the plaint, is initially owned by Sunder Lal, who

died near about in the year 1950. He was survived by his widow

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai and four daughters namely Ghuriya Bai,

Janakdulari, Dhela Bai and Mantora. Family tree of Sunder Lal is

extracted below for ready reference :-

Sunder Lal (died about 1950)

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai (died 1993)

Ghuriya Bai Janakdulari @ Kachara Bai Dhela Bai Mantora (Plaintiff)

Munna Shashikala

Rambharosa Ganesh Prasad Def.No.1

4. In the plaint it is further pleaded that land bearing Kh. No.1071

measuring area 0.032 hectare and Kh. No. 2995/1 measuring 0.032

hectare total 0.064 hectare was owned by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai

and her daughters. Aforementioned property was situated at

Balodabazar Lavan Road, it was not cultivated and was lying barren.

Rambharosa one of the son of Ghuriya Bai had started construction

over the land mentioned above, upon which, other son of Ghuriya Bai

had objected to it upon which Rambharosa, defendant No.1 started

quarreling stating that the property on which he is raising construction

is purchased by him about 20-30 years ago from her maternal grand

mother -Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. It is also pleaded that the said

plea and statement of Ram Bharosa is false because about 15-20

years ago, Ghuriya Bai (original plaintiff), defendant No.1 Ram

Bharosa were residing together with Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai but

Rambharosa has not given any information about purchasing of the

land from Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai, nor mother of plaintiff had given

any information in this regard. Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai was an old

illiterate lady and taking undue advantage of it, registered sale deed

got executed. Sale deed was without sale consideration. It is also

pleaded that defendant No.1 got transferred the property in his name,

his wife's name and also in the name of sister Mantora. In the year

1989, defendant No.1 got one registered will executed by Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Malti Bai (wife of Rambharosa). Further on

the same date another will was executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya

Bai in favour of her daughter Mantora Bai. Sale deed of part of house

is executed in favour of Malti Bai, wife of Rambharosa by Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya Bai. Part of house is also sold in favour of Mantora Bai by

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. Both the sale deed one in favour of Malti

Bai and another in favour of Mantora Bai were executed on

14.06.1991.

5. Perusal of the relief clause would show that plaintiff has sought

declaration of joint possession over property as mentioned in para-2 of

the plaint and has sought specific relief that by registered sale deed

dated 18.06.1976, Rambharosa did not get any right or title over the

property bearing Kh. No.1071 measuring 0.032 hectare and land

bearing Kh. No.2995/1 measuring 0.032 hectare. With regard to the

other properties, which is pleaded to have been sold through

registered sale deed in favour of Malti Bai and Mantora Bai, no specific

relief has been prayed for.

6. Defendants No.1 submitted written statement denying specifically the

pleadings made in the plaint with regard to execution of sale deed in

his favour by taking undue advantage and it was pleaded that

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. during her lifetime was independently

taking care of properties received by her from her husband, who died

much before. Properties, which were sold by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya

Bai was to meet out her need for survival and also for marriage of her

daughters. Execution of sale deed is with her own free will without

there being any force or compulsion. Sale deed was executed within

the knowledge of other family members. Since the date of execution of

sale deed dated 18.06.1976, defendant No.1 came in possession

exclusively. Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai died in the year 1993 and

since 1993 till date of filing of suit, no objection was raised. It is also

pleaded that one of the sister of original plaintiff namely Janak Dulari in

proceedings of Civil Suit No.281-A/2002 has pleaded that she had

purchased one part of the house out of (three kholies/rooms) and only

thereafter the suit was filed. Will was executed in his favour of entire

house known as three kholis and in one part of that, plaintiff is in

unlawful possession, therefore, defendant No.1 has filed, the civil suit

against the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No.6-A/2004, which is pending.

Only with intent to mount pressure against defendants to withdraw the

earlier suit, this suit was filed. It is also pleaded that on the date of

starting dispute, defendant No.1 was not raising any construction over

the land bearing Kh. No.1071 or 2995/1 but adjacent land owned by

Durgi Bai bearing Kh. No.1075 and 2994/1 was purchased by Satish

Jaiswal on which after getting map approved from Municipal Council,

Satish Jaiswal was raising construction over the land purchased by

him.

7. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings made by the parties has

formulated as many as 7 issues for consideration, which reads as

follows :-

i) Whether plaintiff is having title over the land bearing Kh. No.1071 area 0.032 hectare and Kh.

No.2995/1 area 0.032 hectare situated at Village Balodabazar?

ii) Whether sale deed dated 18.06.1976 is illegal and void?

iii) Whether all the legal representatives of Sunder Lal are having title over the suit property?

iv) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for relief of joint possession of suit property?

v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

vi) Whether the suit is barred by principles of res- judicata?

8. Plaintiff in support of their pleadings has examined R.K. Verma,

Revenue Inspector as (P.W.-1), Ganesh Jaiswal, (substituted by

original plaintiff) as (P.W.-2), Lallu Prasad Jaiswal as (P.W.-3) and

exhibited copy of sale deed dated 18.06.1976 executed by Sukhrani

@ Sukhdaiya Bai infaour of Rambharosa as (Ex.P-1), copy of sale

deed dated 14.01.1991 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in

favour of Malti Bai as (Ex.P-2), copy of sale deed dated 14.01.1991

executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Mantora Bai as

(Ex.P-3), copy of registered will deed dated 11.01.1989 executed by

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Rambharosa (defendant No.1)

as (Ex.P-4), copy of registered will deed dated 11.01.1989 executed by

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Mantora Bai as (Ex.P-5), copy

of registered will dated 11.01.1989 executed by Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Malti Bai as (Ex.P-6), copy of judgment

and decree dated 13.03.2009 passed in Civil Suit No.23-A/2007

between Lallu Prsad Vs. Malti Bai, Ghuriya Bai, Munna @ Suresh,

Shashi Bai, Mantora Bai and Rambharos as (Ex.P-7).

9. Defendants in support of their case have examined Mantora Bai as

(D.W.-1), Rambharosa Jaiswal as (D.W.-2) and Satish Jaiswal as

(D.W.-3) and have produced sale deed dated 21.06.2004 as (Ex.D-1)

executed by Durgi Bai in favour of Satish Jaiswal, building permission

in name of Satish Jaiswal and sanctioned map as (Ex.D-2), Kissan

Kitab in the name of Satish Jaiswal as (Ex.D-3), Kissan Kitab in the

name of Radha Bai as (Ex.D-4).

10. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence

brought on record by respective parties had decided all the issues in

negative except the issue with regard to limitation that suit is barred by

limitation and dismissed the suit.

11. Learned First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the

appellant/plaintiff while affirming the judgment and decree passed by

the learned trial Court dismissed the appeal.

12. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned both the

Courts below was not justified in dismissing the suit without

appreciating the fact that plaintiff's mother Ghuriya Bai was having

share in her father's property, therefore, entitled for joint possession

and joint ownership. It is also contended that learned Courts below

have not properly appreciated the facts and evidence that date of

knowledge of sale deed dated 18.06.1976 in favour of defendant No.1,

was only in the year 2005. Learned Courts below have not taken into

consideration that under Hindu Succession Act, after death of land

owner all the legal representatives became joint owner as the same is

self acquired property. Learned Courts below have wrongly held that

plaintiff is not having any right and title over the suit land.

13. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned

counsel for appellant and made submission supporting the impugned

judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court and

would further submit that as both the Courts below have dismissed the

suit, therefore, there are concurrent finding of fact recorded by both

the Courts below, hence, it cannot be interfered with in second appeal

filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.

14. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the

documents placed on record.

15. Main challenge in the civil suit is to the registered sale deed dated

18.06.1976 executed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of

Rambharosa.

16. Before proceeding further I find it appropriate to discuss about the

nature of property and extent of ownership right of seller namely

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai. In the plaint plaintiff has pleaded that land

was owned and recorded in name of Sunder Lal, who died in or about

1950. After death of Sunderlal, it came in possession and ownership of

Sukharani @ Sukhdaiya Bai (widow). Suit is filed on the ground that

sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 to be without

knowledge of executant and taking undue advantage of illiterate lady.

Under the Evidence Act, it is a presumption that registered sale deed

is validly executed. The burden lies on the person alleging fraud to

prove that the registered sale deed was got executed through

fraudulent means. Plaintiff Ganesh Jaiswal is examined as (P.W.-2)

and from his evidence it is appearing that initially suit was filed by his

mother Ghuriya Bai and defendant No.1 is also son of Ghuriya Bai. He

admitted that he is not aware that after death of her maternal grand

father, name of Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai alone was mutated in

revenue records. He also admitted that Ghuriya Bai has executed one

Will in which there is no mention of land, subject matter of sale deed

executed in favour of defendant No.1. He shown his unawareness as

to whether on the date of execution of sale deed, her maternal grand

mother went to the office of Registrar or not and also admitted that at

the time of execution of sale deed, officers present in the Registrar

office used to ask about payment of sale consideration. In his

evidence, he also shown his unawareness about execution of other

sale deed by Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in favour of Tukaram in the

year 1981, Sahdev in the year 1985 and Moolshankar in the year

1990. He also admitted that he do not know if the defendant No.1 has

paid sale consideration to Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai in Registrar's

office. He also admitted that in the sale deed of the year 1976 (Ex.P-

1), it is mentioned that part of payment has been received mutually

and Rs.2,400/- has to be paid in the office of Registrar. It is also

admission on the part of this witness in para-15 that during lifetime of

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai, she has not made any complaint about

non-payment of sale consideration or non-execution of sale deed.

17. Lallu Prasad Jaiswal (P.W.-3), who is son of another sister of Ghuriya

Bai and aunt of Ganesh Jaiswal has stated in his evidence that in the

year 1976, he was residing in part of the house known as Three

Kholis. Out of Three Kholis/rooms, he was residing in one along with

her mother and sister. In one part, her maternal grand mother

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai along with his aunt Mantora Bai, daughter

of Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai were residing. At the time of execution

of sale deed, he was working as Assistant Professor in Balodabazar.

He has also shown his unawareness that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai

has sold the lands through three different sale deed in the year 1981,

1986 and 1990. He also stated that he is not aware if defendant No.1

has paid sale consideration to Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai.

18. There is presumption on the genuineness of registered documents.

The same is presumed to be valid, until presumption is rebutted by

strong evidence to be led by respondents. Onus to prove that

registered document has been executed by fraud or undue influence is

upon the party, who assert the same. To establish the alleged fraud, it

has to be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge

of the party making such representation or that the party could have

no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in

such cases was extremely high. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah, (2004) 8 SCC 588 has held as

under :-

5. ........Fraud is to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. The level of proof required in such cases is extremely higher. An ambiguous statement cannot per se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation."

19. In case of Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, (2023) 8 SCC

410, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registration of document and its

recitals were presumed to be valid, unless such presumption was

rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary. Once the registering

authority accepts the documents for registration, it becomes prima-

facie evidence that conditions required for such registration had been

satisfied and burden of proving any alleged infirmity rests on the

person who challenges the registration.

"79. It is trite that registration of a document is a solemn act of parties and the recitals of a registered document are presumed to be valid unless such a presumption is rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary, vide Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal [Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434] . This is because, as already stated, the document speaks for itself.

80. In Chhotey Lal v. Collector of Moradabad [Chhotey Lal v. Collector of Moradabad, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 48 : (1921-22) 49 IA 375 : AIR 1922 PC 279] the Privy Council considered the question as to the presumption of validity of a power of attorney which formed the basis of a registered mortgage deed which was later challenged. The Privy Council noted that since the Sub-

Registrar had accepted the document for registration, it is prima facie evidence that the conditions have been satisfied and after registration of the document, the burden of proving any alleged infirmity rests on the person who challenges the registration.

81. Similarly, in Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh [Jugraj Singh v. Jaswant Singh, (1970) 2 SCC 386] , this Court reiterated the legal position as to the presumption of regularity of official acts, and held that it would be presumed that a Sub-Registrar registering a document would have proceeded with the registration only on satisfying himself as to the fact that the person who was executing the document was the proper person.

* * *

83. In short, it has been authoritatively laid down by this Court that a registered document carries with it, by virtue of it being registered, the presumption as to the authority of the person executing it. In the present case, the trial court and the first appellate court failed to treat the endorsement made by the District Sub-Registrar on the body of sale deed, as evidence in respect of the authority of Plaintiff 2 to execute sale deed. This is to be considered in light of the fact that at no point of time did the original owner, namely, Braja Mohan Dey dispute the execution of power of attorney in favour of Plaintiff

2."

20. In case at hand, the sale deed in question is said to have been

executed on 18.06.1976. Seller of property Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya

Bai, during her lifetime has not challenged or questioned the execution

of sale deed, who died in the year 1993.

21. Plaintiff in her plaint has pleaded that Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai was

having more affection towards Rambharosa, defendant No.1 and was

looking after her property on his advice. It is also pleaded that

defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of advanced age and physical

weakness have got the sale deed executed without any sale

consideration. In written statement, defendant No.1 has pleaded that

sale deed was executed in his favour because owner of the property,

her maternal grand mother was in need of money.

22. Ganesh Jaiswal (P.W.-2) in para 13 of his evidence stated that

Sukhrani Bai sold her other properties in favour of Tukaram in the year

1981, Sahdev in the year 1985 and Moolshankar in the year 1990.

This witness has further stated that he was not present in the

Registrar's office in the year 1976. He also admitted that if defendant

No.1 had paid the sale consideration to the seller Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya Bai in Registrar's office to which he is not aware. He also

stated according to contents of sale deed, total sale consideration was

Rs.4400/- of which Rs.2000/- has been transacted between them and

Rs.2400/- is to be paid in office of Registrar at the time of registration.

He also admitted that death of Sukhrani was in the year 1991. From

the aforementioned evidence, it is apparent that plaintiffs have filed

suit under apprehension that sale deed got to be executed by

defendants by taking undue advantage of advance age of seller

Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai but have not proved it by placing cogent

evidence on record. The issue of getting the sale deed registered by

undue influence came up for consideration before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Jamila Begum v. Shami Mohd., (2019) 2

SCC 727 and it is observed in para-28 as under :-

"28. Insofar as the plea of undue influence, merely because the parties are related to each other or merely because the executant was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise. The court must scrutinise the pleadings to find out that such plea has been made out before examining whether undue influence was exercised or not."

23. In case at hand, there is no pleading or evidence that Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya on the date of execution of alleged sale deed (Ex.P-1) was

not in a position to understand or so infirm that she could be

dominated by defendant who is maternal grand child of her, more so,

when undisputedly plaintiff, mother of defendant No.1 along with other

children is residing with Sukhrani @ Sukhdaiya Bai and their children

were also residing in part of the house owned by Sukhrani @

Sukhdaiya Bai.

24. The finding of valid execution of sale deed arrived at by the learned

trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court is on proper

appreciation of evidence. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded

by both Courts. The finding arrived by the Courts below in the facts of

the case cannot be said to be perverse to the evidence available on

record, therefore, this Court will not interfere with such findings.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navaneethammal vs. Arjuna

Chetty reported in AIR 1996 SC 3521, has held that interference with

the concurrent findings of the Courts below by the High Court under

Section 100 of CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling

reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to re-appreciate

the evidence just to replace the findings of the Lower Court. Even

assuming that another view is possible on re-appreciation of the same

evidence that should not have been done by the High Court, as it

cannot be said that the view taken by the First Appellate Court was

based on no material.

26. In case of Gurdev Kaur & Ors v. Kaki & Ors, reported in (2007) 1

SCC 546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos. 54,

which is as under:-

"54. In the same case, this Court observed that in a case where special leave petition was filed against a judgment of the High Court interfering with findings of fact of the lower appellate court. This Court observed that to say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law

to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. This Court further observed that the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible."

27. In the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Shiv Dayal and

Another, Reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed in para Nos. 14, 15 & 16 as under:-

"14. True it is as has been laid down by this Court in several decisions that "concurrent finding of fact" is usually binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"). However, this rule of law is subject to certain well-known exceptions mentioned infra.

15. It is a trite law that in order to record any finding on the facts, the trial court is required to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the light of the pleadings of the parties. Similarly, it is also a trite law that the appellate court also has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence de novo while hearing the first appeal and either affirm the finding of the trial court or reverse it. If the appellate court affirms the finding, it is called "concurrent finding of fact" whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reversing finding". These expressions are well known in the legal parlance.

16. 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 dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was 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. (See observation made by learned Judge, Vivian Bose, J., as his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar [Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar v. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar, 1942 SCC OnLine MP 26 : AIR 1943 Nag 117] para 43.)"

28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhbiri Devi and Others

vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC

1322 while reiterating the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of

Shiv Dayal and Another (supra), has held that interference with the

concurrent findings in subsequent appeal can be made if it is pointed

out that it has been passed dehors the pleadings or based on no

evidence or based on misreading of material evidence or against the

provision of law etc.

29. Both the Courts below have also dismissed the suit on limitation. As

learned trial Court as also the First Appellate Court have dismissed the

suit on merits and this Court in preceding paragraph while considering

the case on merits have arrived at a conclusion that finding recorded