[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Guddi Bai vs Ghasnin Bai on 23 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:13657
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
NAFR
JYOTI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.03.23
17:11:38
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 343 of 2022
Shivshankar Sahu S/o Banjar Prasad Sahu Aged About 41 Years
R/o Village- Manipur, Police Out Post- Manipur, Post, P.S. And
Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant(s)
versus
1. Ghasnin Bai W/o Late Basant Panika Aged About 67 Years R/o
Village- Machadoli, P.S.- Bango, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba,
Chhattisgarh
2. Urmila Manikpuri D/o Late Basant Panika Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village- Machadoli, P.S.- Bango, Tahsil- Katghora, District-
Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. Smt. Guddi Bai W/o Shri Mannu Das Aged About 41 Years R/o
Sundarpur (Lodhima), Post, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
4. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surguja At
Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh
5. Smt. Munni Bai W/o Aasan Kumar Chouhan Aged About 45
Years R/o Benai, Post- Girhuldhih, P.S. And Tahsil- Sitapur,district-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
6. Smt. Prabha Mishra W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra Aged About
37 Years R/o Main Road, Lakhanpur, Post, P.S. And Tahsil-
Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh
7. Arun Gupta S/o Jagarnath Gupta Aged About 45 Years R/o
Mandirpara, Ward No. 06, Sundarpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur,
District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
Smt. Guddi Bai W/o Mannu Das, Aged About 41 Years R/o Village
Sundarpur, Ambikapur, P.S. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ghasnin Bai W/o Late Basant Panika, Aged About 67 Years
R/o Village Machadoli, P.S. Bango Tahsil Katghora, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. Urmila Manikpuri D/o Late Baant Panika, Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village Machadoli, P.S. Bango Tahsil Katghora, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
3. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja At
Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate and
Md. Ruhul Ameen, Advocate along
with Mr. Anurag Agrawal.
For State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
23.03.2026
1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and
decree, they are considered and decided by this common
judgment.
2. S.A. No. 297 of 2022 preferred by the Defendant No.1 Smt.
Guddi Bai/ appellant whereas S.A. No. 343 of 2022 preferred
by the subsequent purchasers, namely Shivshankar Sahu/
appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for brevity CPC) against the common judgment &
decree dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Learned 3rd
Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. in
Civil Appeal No. 34A/2021 (Smt. Guddi Bai Vs. Ghasnin Bai
& Ors.) and Civil Appeal No. 39A/2021 (Shivshankar Sahu &
Ors. Vs. Smt. Ghasnin Bai and Ors.) affirming the judgment
and decree dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Trial Court in
Civil Suit No. 182A/2015 (Ghasnin Bai & Anr. Vs. Smt. Guddi
Bai & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the
suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. For the sake of convenience,
the parties would be referred as per their status before the
learned trial Court.
3. The plaintiffs preferred the suit for declaration of title over
Khasra No. 352 area 0.121 hect. described in Appendix-A
and for declaration of sale deed dated 12.01.2015 executed
in favour of defendant No. 1 as null, void and unlawful
pleading inter alia that they were having ancestral property
bearing khasra No.352/1 area of 0.272 hectares situated at
Village Sundarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tehsil
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). During the settlement
proceedings, the said land was recorded in the name of
Karuha Panika, son of Sampat Das Panika. After the death of
the said recorded holder, the land came to be recorded in the
name of his legal heir i.e. Basant Panika, who was the
husband of Plaintiff No.1 and the father of Plaintiff No.2. Thus,
the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs.
Basant Panika died on 31.07.2015 at Village Sundarpur,
Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). It is further pleaded
that the husband of Defendant No.1, namely Mannudas, is a
clever and fraudulent person who, by misleading Basant
Panika, got a sale deed executed on 12.01.2015, in respect of
land bearing khasra No.352/1 area of 0.121 hectares
(henceforth 'the suit land') in favour of Defendant No.1 in
respect of the suit land, showing a sale consideration of
Rs.1,70,000/-. However, in reality no sale consideration was
ever paid either to the plaintiffs or to Basant Panika. The said
sale deed was executed only as a paper transaction without
any consideration and is therefore void from the very
beginning. It is further stated that the suit land was not the
self-acquired property of Basant Panika but was ancestral
property; therefore, Basant Panika had no right to alienate the
same. The Defendant No.1, without following the proper legal
procedure for mutation, got her name recorded in the revenue
records through the Patwari on the basis of the said illegal
and void sale deed. The plaintiffs came to know about the
said sale deed and the illegal entry in the revenue records
only in July 2015 after the death of Basant Panika, when they
approached the Patwari for recording the death entry. Upon
obtaining copies of the revenue documents in September
2015, the plaintiffs came to know for the first time that
Defendant No.1 had fraudulently got the sale deed dated
12.01.2015 registered and had also clandestinely got her
name mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the plaintiffs
have filed the present suit seeking declaration that the sale
deed dated 12.01.2015 executed in favour of Defendant No.1
is null and void and not binding on them, and for declaration of
their title over the suit land described in Schedule "A".
4. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement contending that
the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Karuha
Panika during the settlement proceedings and after his death
it was recorded in the name of his son, Basant Panika, in the
revenue records. It is denied that the suit land is the ancestral
property of Plaintiff No.2. It is further pleaded that Plaintiff
No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of late Basant Panika and
Plaintiff No.2 is not his daughter. According to the defendant,
Birajo Bai is the first legally wedded wife of Basant Panika
and the plaintiffs have never resided with Basant Panika in
Village Sundarpur; rather they are residents of Village
Machadoli, District Korba. It is also pleaded that Birajo Bai,
being the legal heir of Basant Panika, has not been
impleaded as a party and therefore the suit is liable to be
dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The defendant
further stated that during his lifetime Basant Panika, being the
recorded owner of the land, executed a registered sale deed
dated 12.01.2015 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 352
admeasuring 0.121 hectare in favour of Defendant No.1
before the Sub-Registrar, Ambikapur, in the presence of
witnesses after receiving full sale consideration of
Rs.1,70,000/-. Since then Defendant No.1 is in possession of
the suit land and her name has been duly recorded in the
revenue records. It is also contended that as the plaintiffs are
not the legal heirs of Basant Panika, they had no right to the
sale consideration and no notice to them was required. The
defendant also raised objections regarding jurisdiction of the
Court and insufficiency of court fees, and prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
5. The learned Trial Court, after framing the necessary issues,
held that the Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
the suit and that the plaintiffs had properly valued the suit and
paid the requisite court fee. The objection raised by the
defendant regarding non-joinder of necessary party was also
rejected on the ground that the defendant failed to produce
any cogent evidence to establish that Birajo Bai was the
legally wedded wife of late Basant Panika or that she had any
subsisting interest in the suit property. On merits, the Trial
Court found that the suit property originally belonged to
Karuha Panika and, after his death, devolved upon his legal
heirs including Basant Panika. The Court held that Basant
Panika was not the exclusive owner of the entire suit property
and, therefore, had no authority to transfer the whole property
without the consent of the other co-sharers. The defendant
failed to prove that Basant Panika had absolute title over the
property or that the other legal heirs had consented to the
execution of the sale deed.
6. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs, declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit
land bearing Khasra No. 352 admeasuring 0.121 hectare
situated at Village Sundarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
and further declared that the sale deed dated 12.01.2015
executed in favour of Defendant No.1 is null and void and
liable to be cancelled.
7. At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention here that just
before filing the suit and during pendency of the suit, the
defendant No.1 sold the suit land to the appellant namely;
Shivshankar Sahu in SA No.343 of 2022 by three registered
sale deeds dated 23.7.2015, 28.11.2025 and 15.1.2016 in
respect of land admeasuinrg 0.121 hectares (0.040 + 0.040 +
0.041).
8. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the judgment and decree
dated 06.07.2021, the defendant No. 1 preferred a First
Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure
before the learned First Appellate Court. In the said appeal,
the subsequent purchasers moved an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading them as necessary
party, however, when the same has been rejected by the
appellate Court they too filed separate appeal under Section
96 of the CPC bearing CA No.39-A/2021. Both the appeals
were clubbed and heard. The learned First Appellate Court,
on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed
the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed both
the appeals preferred by defendant No.1 Guddi Bai as also
the subsequent purchasers by the common impugned
judgment. Hence, the present appeals by the defendant No.1
Guddi Bai and the subsequent purchaser Shivshankar Sahu.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 Guddi Bai
submits that the impugned judgments passed by the Courts
below are contrary to law and facts of the case. It is
contended that late Basant Panika was competent to sell his
share in the suit property and had validly executed the sale
deed dated 12.01.2015 in favour of Defendant No.1. It is
further submitted that even if the property is treated as joint
property, a co-sharer can transfer his undivided share,
therefore the sale deed could not have been declared wholly
null and void. The plaintiffs also failed to prove any fraud in
the transaction; hence the findings of the Courts below are
erroneous and give rise to substantial questions of law.
10. While adopting the aforesaid arguments advanced by
defendant No.1, the subsequent purchaser would submit that
the appellants, being subsequent purchasers through
registered sale deeds dated 23.07.2015, 28.11.2015 and
15.01.2016 executed by Defendant No.1, were not impleaded
as parties in the suit and therefore the judgment and decree
dated 06.07.2021 is not binding upon them. Hence, once the
sale deed dated 12.01.2015 is valid, the subsequent sale
deeds would also be valid and the findings recorded by the
Courts below are erroneous, giving rise to substantial
questions of law in the present appeal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants 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.
12. Upon bare persual of the impugned judgment and decree, it is
evident that the learned First Appellate Court appreciated the
points for determination regarding the nature of the suit
property; the authority of late Basant Panika to transfer the
land; the allegation of fraud in execution of the sale deed in
favour of defendant No.1 Guddi Bai; and whether the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court required
interference. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record,
the Court held that the suit property was ancestral property
which had originally been settled in the name of Karuha
Panika and thereafter devolved upon Basant Panika by
inheritance. It was further held that plaintiff Urmila Bai, being
the daughter of Basant Panika, was entitled to a share in the
said ancestral property and her right would not be
extinguished merely because she had been residing
separately from her father since childhood.
13. The First Appellate Court further observed that although a co-
sharer is legally competent to transfer his share in joint
property, the evidence on record showed that Basant Panika
had already alienated substantial portions of the inherited
land to several persons during his lifetime and had
transferred land in excess of his share. It has been observed
by the learned First Appellate court that out of total 5.84 acres
ancestral property, 3.66 acres was sold by Basant Panika,
however, out of the rest part 2.18 acres, though sale deed
alleged to be executed in favour of defendant No. 1 Guddi Bai
selling 30 decimal of land but no consent of the plaintiffs were
obtained. Even there is no proof of partition between them. In
such circumstances, the registered sale deed dated
12.01.2015 executed in favour of defendant No.1 Guddi Bai
did not confer any valid title upon her. The Court also held
that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the said sale
deed was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation; however,
since the transfer itself was beyond the authority of Basant
Panika, no right accrued to Guddi Bai on the basis of the said
transaction. The Court further found that Guddi Bai had
subsequently transferred the land in favour of Shivshankar
Sahu through registered sale deeds dated 23.07.2015,
28.11.2015 and 15.01.2016 in different portions, some of
which were executed during the pendency of the suit. In view
of the transfer having been made during the pendency of the
litigation, the subsequent purchasers were held to be bound
by the result of the suit and could not claim any independent
title on the basis of those transactions. Consequently, it was
held that the subsequent sale deeds also did not confer any
valid right or title upon the purchasers. On the basis of the
aforesaid analysis, the First Appellate Court concluded that
the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit and had not
committed any error either on facts or in law. The impugned
judgment and decree are just and proper and there is no
illegality or irregularity at all.
14. 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.
15. 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/
defendant 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the appellants 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 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 as well as by
the learned First Appellate Court are just and proper and
there is no illegality and infirmity at all.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on
perusal of the record of the case and in view of the above
settled legal proposition, I find absolutely no merit in this
appeal, involving no question of law much less substantial
question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC.
In my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the
Courts appear to be just, proper and legal. The findings
recorded are based on proper appreciation of evidence
available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in
the same and they does not call for any interference.
21. As an upshot, both the Second Appeals filed by defendant
No.1 Guddi Bai and the subsequent purchaser Shivshankar
Sahu fail and are hereby dismissed in limine resulting in
upholding of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court. Consequently, the judgment and
decree dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Trial Court in Civil
Suit No.182-A/2015 are hereby affirmed.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Jyoti
