[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Faguram Yadav vs Kalyan Singh on 25 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14310
Digitally
NAFR
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2026.03.25
17:51:04
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 427 of 2016
Faguram Yadav S/o Sidhwa Yadav, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village- Chandali, Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District-
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh
.. Appellant
versus
1 - Kalyan Singh S/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali,
Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
1.1 - Sanat S/o Vishnu Sahu R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil- Lormi,
District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.2 - Sarojani D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.3 - Kamla Bai W/o Vishnu Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.4 - Sharad S/o Vishnu Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.5 - Shyam Bai D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
1.6 - Champa Bai D/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali,
Tahsil- Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
1.7 - Kailash S/o Maniram Sahu, R/o Village- Chandali, Tahsil-
Lormi, District- Mungeli, Civil District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District- Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh ................Defendants,
--- Respondents
____________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Lekhram Dhruw, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
25.03.2026
1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the
appellant namely; Faguram, who is the son of original plaintiff
namely; Sidhwa Ram, challenging the impugned judgment and
decree dated 16/06/2016 passed by the learned Additional Judge
to the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, C.G. in Civil Appeal
No.31A/2015 (Faguram Yadav Vs Kalyan Singh & Ors) arising
out of the judgment and decree dated 23/07/2010 passed by the
learned Civil Judge Class-II, Lormi, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil
Suit No.20A/2009 (Sidhwa Ram Yadav Vs. Maniram & Ors) . For
the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per
their status before the learned trial Court.
2. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking for possession of the land
and for permanent injunction with respect to the land bearing
Khasra No. 255/2, measuring 0.04 acres, situated in Village
Chandli, Patwari Halka No. 7, R.I. Circle and Tehsil Lormi, District
Bilaspur, as described in Schedule "A" annexed to the plaint,
pleading inter alia that the plaintiff, Sidhwa, purchased the
disputed land along with other lands, namely Khasra Nos. 311,
405, 406, 407, 408, 409, and 412, having respective areas of
0.84, 0.08, 0.33, 0.15, 1.34, 0.65, and 0.35 acres (total 3.72
acres), from Smt. Chitrautin Bai, w/o Parsadi Lal, by a registered
sale deed dated 12.10.1965 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-.
After the purchase, the plaintiff's name was duly recorded as the
owner in the revenue records, and since then, the plaintiff has
been in possession and cultivation of the said lands as their
lawful owner. Out of the aforesaid lands, the defendant, by deceit
and conspiracy, in the year 1980 falsely declared the plaintiff to
be dead and, in collusion with revenue officials, submitted an
application. By misrepresenting that notice had been duly served
upon the legal heirs of the plaintiff, the defendant managed to get
an ex parte order passed and got his own name recorded as the
owner of the disputed land in the revenue records. Upon gaining
knowledge of this fact, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Lormi. The Sub-Divisional Officer decided in
favor of the plaintiff and ordered the deletion of the defendant's
name from the revenue records of the disputed land.
Consequently, the plaintiff's name was restored in the revenue
records. It was further pleaded that on 01.02.2006, the defendant
forcibly took possession of the disputed land and started
construction of a house thereon without having any lawful title or
authority over the said land.
3. The defendant in his written statement, denied all the plaint
averments. He submitted that he has no knowledge of the plaintiff
having purchased a total of 3.72 acres of land from Chitrautin Bai
on 12.10.1965 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. In fact, the land
bearing Khasra No. 255, admeasuring 0.04 acres, was
purchased by the defendant from Chitrautin Bai on 18.01.1963.
Thereafter, Chitrautin Bai handed over possession of the said
land to the defendant, who has been in continuous possession
since 1963 after constructing a house and a kitchen garden
(badi) over it. Thus, the defendant is in possession of his own
land. The defendant asserts that he has not encroached upon
any land belonging to the plaintiff. He further denied having
committed any fraud or having got the disputed land mutated in
his name in the year 1980 by falsely declaring the plaintiff to be
dead. It is also stated that the defendant did not take possession
of the disputed land on 01.02.2006, nor is he carrying out any
construction over the said land.
4. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues and upon due
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
both parties, as well as the material available on record,
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Court observed that
the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 255, admeasuring 0.04
acres, situated in Village Chandli, Tehsil Lormi, was purchased
by the original plaintiff from Smt. Chitrautin Bai along with other
lands through a registered sale deed dated 12.10.1965.
However, no explanation has been offered by the plaintiff, either
in the pleadings or during the course of evidence, as to how
Khasra No. 255 came to be recorded as 255/2. Furthermore, the
plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No. 1 fraudulently
got his name recorded as the owner of the disputed land in the
revenue records by falsely declaring the plaintiff to be dead and
in collusion with the revenue authorities. It has been proved in the
suit that the claim filed by the plaintiff was barred by the principle
of res judicata.
5. Against the said judgment and decree, the son of the original
plaintiff filed the Civil Appeal before the learned Appellate Court
who by the judgment and decree impugned, dismissed the Civil
Appeal by maintaining the judgment and decree passed by the
learned trial Court. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
learned Trial Court failed to carefully examine the documentary
evidence as well as the oral evidence adduced in the matter.
Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff purchased the
suit property from Chitrautin Bai through a registered sale deed.
The respondents did not present any evidence or documents
before the subordinate court, yet the subordinate court rejected it
on the principle of res judicata. The respondents have not proven
how or on what basis their names were recorded on the suit
property. Despite this, the trial Court passed the order impugned
which is not just and proper. Therefore, it is prayed that the
appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff be allowed, and the order
impugned may liable to be set aside.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the
material available on record.
8. In the present case, Defendant-Kalyan Singh, in written
statement submitted that with respect to the disputed land, the
original plaintiff had previously filed a civil suit bearing No.
11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs. Maniram) against the original
defendant. The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide
judgment dated 14.10.1997. However, the plaintiff, by concealing
these true facts, has filed the present claim again on false
grounds, which is not maintainable. In this regard, Defendant also
submitted a certified copy of the judgment dated 14.10.1997
passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, District
Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs. Maniram),
which was exhibited as Document Ex. D-1.
9. After examining the pleadings and evidence, this Court finds that
the plaintiff purchased the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 255,
admeasuring 0.04 acres, situated in Village Chandli, Tehsil
Lormi, from Smt. Chitrautin Bai through a registered sale deed
dated 12.10.1965; however, the plaintiff has failed to explain how
the land came to be recorded as Khasra No. 255/2 and has also
not proved the allegation that Defendant fraudulently recorded his
name in the revenue records. It is further established that the
plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 11-A/1990 (Sidhwa Ram vs.
Maniram) on the same cause of action, which was dismissed by
the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Mungeli, District Bilaspur, vide
judgment dated 14.10.1997, a certified copy of which has been
marked as Ex. D-1. In view of these facts, the present suit is
barred by the principle of res judicata, and the plaintiff has failed
to establish any right, title, or interest in the disputed land.
10. 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.
11. 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/plaintiff failed to
establish its 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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 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 appellant
herein. The judgments impugned passed by the learned trial
Court as well as by the learned First appellate Court are just and
proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Gowri/Amardeep
