[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kheman Bai @ Khom Kunwar (Died) Through ... vs Johan Lal Sahu on 16 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12439
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 304 of 2019
Digitally
Kheman Bai @ Khom Kunwar (Died) Through Legal Heirs
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2026.03.17
10:21:15
+0530
1. Horilal S/o Late Ajit Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Prakash Kumar S/o Late Ajit Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o
Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Ajit Ram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Sitaram Sahu S/o Late Ajit Ram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Smt. Pratima Sahu Wd/o Late Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 30
Years R/o Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur,
2
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Late Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 6
Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Pratima Sahu,
Wd/o Late Radheshyam Sahu, R/o Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Smt. Geeta Sahu W/o Balmukund Sahu Aged About 51 Years D/o
Late Ajitram Sahu, R/o Village Kargikala, Tahsil Kota, District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Smt. Raj Kumar Sahu W/o Shiv Prasad Sahu Aged About 48 Years
D/o Ajitram Sahu, R/o Quarter No. 160, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra,
Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
9 - Smt. Shiv Kumari Sahu W/o Vyas Narayan Sahu Aged About 46
Years D/o Late Ajit Ram Sahu, R/o Village Dhurabhatha, Tahsil
Korba, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Johan Lal Sahu S/o Bhondu Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Village
Mopka, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3
2 - Dashrath Sahu S/o Bhondu Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village
Mopka, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Gokul Sahu S/o Bhondu Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
Mopka, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Gajadhar Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village Madai, Khamhariya, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Gulab Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Madai, Khamhariya, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Uttam Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Madai, Khamhariya, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
7 - Rukmin Bai Sahu W/o Bahoran Sahu Aged About 50 Years D/o
Late Mohan Lal Sahu, R/o Village Madai, Khamhariya, Tahsil Masturi,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Smt. Meena Sahu D/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years
Houswife, R/o Village Tekari, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4
9 - Hemini @ Hemin Bai Sahu W/o Late Sunder Lal Sahu Aged About
63 Years D/o Late Bhondu Sahu, Housewife R/o Village Karagikala,
Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
10 - Rahi Bai Sahu D/o Late Bhondu Sahu Aged About 55 Years
Housewife R/o Village Karagikala, Tahsil Kota, District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
11 - Mathura Bai Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu Aged About 50 Years D/o
Bhondu Sahu, Housewife R/o Village Karagikala, Tahsil Kota,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellants : Shri S.B. Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2,: Shri Jayed Ziya Ali, Advocate appears
7, 8, 10 & 11 on behalf of Shri Arvind Shrivastava,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Lekhram Dhruv, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
16.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the
appellants/plaintiffs challenging the impugned judgment and
decree dated 10.12018 passed by the Learned 9th Additional
District Judge, Bilaspur Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.
(A) 85/2018 (Kheman Bai (died) through Legal heirs vs.
Johanlal & Others) arising out of the judgment and decree
dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- II,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.
23-A/11(Kheman Bai (died) through Legal heirs vs. Johanlal &
Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking
declaration of title and partition in respect of land situated at
Village Mopka, P.H. No. 132, R.N.M., Tahsil and District
Bilaspur, bearing Khasra Nos. 420, 666, 667/2, 1424, 1637 and
1777, having area 0.59, 0.22, 0.04, 1.51, 0.55 and 1.19 acres
respectively, total 4.10 acres (hereinafter referred to as the
suit land).
3. It is undisputed that the original plaintiff and defendants No.
9 to 11 are the daughters of late Bhondu, while defendants
No. 1 to 3 and late Mohanlal are the sons of late Bhondu.
Defendants No. 4 to 8 are the sons and daughters of late
Mohanlal, who was also the son of late Bhondu. Thus, late
Bhondu had four sons and four daughters. Late Bhondu died
on 30.06.1991.
4. The case of the original plaintiff is that after the death of her
father, the suit land devolved upon all the legal heirs and both
parties remained in possession and cultivated the land jointly.
The plaintiff was allegedly receiving five bags of paddy
annually as her share until the year 2004, after which the
defendants stopped giving her share. When she demanded
partition, the defendants refused in June 2005. On inquiry
from the Patwari, she came to know that defendants No. 1 to
3 and late Mohanlal had allegedly got mutation (fauti entry)
recorded in their favour without informing her. The plaintiff
further stated that upon learning about the mutation, she
filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur in
Revenue Appeal No. 185-A-6/03-04, seeking entry of her name
along with her brothers in the revenue records. The said
appeal was dismissed by order dated 23.05.2006, with liberty
to approach the Civil Court.
5. According to plaintiff that since late Bhondu had four sons
and four daughters, the suit property devolved upon all of
them by inheritance. Therefore, under the provisions of the
Hindu Succession Act, she is entitled to declaration of her title
and 1/8th share in the suit land. Defendant No. 12 (State of
Chhattisgarh) has been impleaded only as a formal party and
no relief is claimed against it.
6. The Defendants No. 2 to 9 and 11 filed written statement
denying the plaint allegations. They contend that the suit land
originally stood in the name of late Bhodu Ram prior to
20.06.1990, and during his lifetime he executed partition
deeds dated 02.11.1979 and 28.09.1989, whereby he
distributed his self-acquired properties among his sons. Based
on such partition, mutation orders were passed on 30.12.1980
and 20.06.1990, and separate revenue accounts were created.
7. According to the defendants, after partition the respective
sons became exclusive owners of different portions of land.
Since the property had already been partitioned during the
lifetime of late Bhodu, the plaintiff has no right or share in the
suit property. The defendants further submit that the plaintiff
had knowledge of the partition and separate possession since
1979, as the brothers had been living separately and social
customs such as festivals and ceremonies were also
performed separately. It is also contended that no fauti
mutation was done after the death of Bhodu, and the
plaintiff's appeal before the SDO was rejected as the land was
not recorded in Bhodu's name at that time. It is also pleaded
that the cause of action arose in 1979, when the partition took
place, and the revenue records were finally separated in 1990,
whereas the suit was filed in 2007. Hence, the suit is barred by
limitation. The defendants further contended that the
valuation of the suit and court fee is incorrect. Since the
plaintiff has sought partition claiming 1/8th share, the suit
ought to be valued accordingly and proper court fee paid. It is
stated that the value of the property is approximately Rs.
20,00,000, and appropriate court fee must be paid.
8. Defendants No. 1, 10 and 12 have remained ex parte and have
not filed any written statement.
9. After appreciating the evidence available on record and after
framing the issues, the learned trial Court by the judgment
and decree dated 18.04.2018 dismissed the suit of the
plaintiffs. Thereagainst, the Civil Appeal preferred by the
plaintiffs has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment
and decree by the learned First Appellate Court. Thus, this
appeal.
10. While dismissing the suit by the learned trial Court as well as
the First Appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, it has
categorically been observed that the plaintiff failed to prove
that the suit property was ancestral. The evidence showed
that late Bhondu had already partitioned his self-acquired
property among his sons during his lifetime, therefore the
plaintiff had no 1/8th share in the suit land. Accordingly, the
suit for declaration and partition was dismissed, though the
Court held that the suit was within limitation and properly
valued.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts are
erroneous and contrary to the material available on record. It
is contended that the Courts failed to properly appreciate the
evidence and wrongly ignored the fact that the suit property
was ancestral property of late Bhondu and that the alleged
partition was not binding upon the plaintiff, as her name was
never recorded in the revenue records. It is further submitted
that the findings recorded by the Courts suffer from
misreading of evidence and non-consideration of relevant
admissions of the parties. Hence, according to the learned
counsel, the impugned judgments give rise to substantial
questions of law and the present second appeal deserves to
be admitted for consideration.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the
material available on record.
13. The present second appeal has been preferred against the
concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts
whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title
and partition has been dismissed.
14. From the perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the plaintiffs
had not specifically pleaded that the suit property was
ancestral property, nor was any foundation laid in the
pleadings as to how the property devolved upon late Bhondu
and how the plaintiffs acquired a share therein. In absence of
such pleadings, the plaintiffs also failed to adduce cogent
evidence to establish that the suit property was ancestral in
nature.
15. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that late
Bhondu had already effected partition of his self-acquired
property among his sons during his lifetime and the revenue
records were mutated accordingly. Consequently, it was held
that the plaintiffs were not entitled to declaration of title or to
claim 1/8th share in the suit property and the suit was
dismissed. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the
evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial
Court and dismissed the appeal.
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 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.
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.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib/Gowri
