Pusauram Sahu Vs Sanjeet Vishwakarma

1

 2025:CGHC:50143-DB

¶3

 NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by HARNEET HARNEET KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.10.08 17:46:33 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

First Appeal No. 485 of 2019
Judgment reserved on 08.09.2025
Judgment delivered on 08.10.2025
Judgment uploaded on 08.10.2025

¶7

1 - Pusauram Sahu S/o Late Mangluram Sahu Aged
About 55 Years Nil

¶8

2 - Smt. Surja Bai Sahu, Wd/o Late Mangluram
Sahu (Died) Through Lrs.

¶9

2.1 - Smt. Chinti Bai Sahu D/o Late Mangluram
Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Devri,
Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2.2 - Smt. Rukhmani Bai D/o Mangluram Sahu Aged
About 65 Years R/o Village Hirrukhapri, Tahsil
Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2.3 - Smt. Kusma D/o Mangluram Sahu Aged About
58 Years R/o Village Ghughwa, Tahsil Patan,
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh

¶12

2.4 - Smt. Dashri Bai D/o Mangluram Sahu Aged
About 56 Years R/o Machandur, Tahsil Patan,

¶13

2

¶14

DistrictDurgChhattisgarh.(Plaintiff),
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶15

… Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶16

versus

¶17

1 - Sanjeet Vishwakarma S/o R.D. Vishwakarma
Aged About 29 Years R/o Maroda Station Uttai
Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶18

2 - Rupesh Kumar Sahu S/o Pusau Sahu Aged About
26 Years R/o Village Pataura, Tahsil Patan,
District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh

¶19

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector,
Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Defendant),
District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶20

 … Respondents/Defendants

¶21

`For Appellants`	`:Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate`
`For Respondent 1`	`:Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate`
`For Respondent 3`	`:Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A.`

¶22

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal C.A.V. Judgment

¶23

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶24

1. Appellants/Plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling in question the legality,

¶25

3

¶26

validity and correctness of impugned judgment
and decree dated 13/08/2019 passed by the 8th
Additional District Judge, District Durg in
Civil Suit No. 19-A/2013 whereby plaintiffs’
suit for declaration of agreement to sale dated
27/11/2012 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour

¶27

of defendant No. 1 as null and void and for
permanent injunction has been dismissed.

¶28

(For the sake of convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as per their status
and ranking given in the plaint before the trial
Court.)

¶29

Facts of the Case

¶30

2. Plaintiffs filed a civil suit stating inter alia that defendant No. 2 is the son of plaintiff No. 1 and grandson of plaintiff No. 2 (who died during the pendency of the suit on 22/11/2013 and four legal heirs of hers were substituted and brought on record) and the suit land bearing Khasra No. 492 area 1.23 hectares situated at Village Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg was originally owned by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, however, on 13/12/2012, defendant No. 1 published a general notice in the newspaper that

¶31

4

¶32

defendant No. 2 has executed agreement to sale
dated 27/11/2012 in his favour with regard to
suit land bearing Khasra No. 482, area 0.40
hectares situated at village Grag-Patoura,
Patwari Halka No. 11, Tahsil Patan, District
Durg, by authority of power of attorney dated
18/09/2012, for a sale consideration of Rs.
10,30,000/-, out of which, Rs. 7,00,000/- has
been paid by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2.
It is the case of the plaintiffs that they came
to know about the said notice on 14/12/2012, a
rebuttal/refutation notice was also published in

¶33

the newspaper by them stating that the power of
attorney dated 18/09/2012 is a fake and forged

¶34

document and thus, the agreement to sale is void
and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs also sent a legal notice on
17/12/2012 which was replied by defendant No. 1
on 20/12/2012 and a report was also made to
S.P., Durg on 22/12/2012 and cancellation of

¶35

power of attorney was also executed on
01/02/2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought

¶36

this civil suit against the defendants seeking

¶37

declaration of agreement to sale dated
27/11/2012 as null and void and for permanent

¶38

5

¶39

injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from
interfering with their possession.

¶40

3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement opposing the plaint averments stating thereby that the agreement to sale dated 27/11/2012 is not illegal and in fact, it was executed within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the same was shown to plaintiff No. 1. He has further stated that plaintiffs, with a malafide intention of keeping the advance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and with an intention of not executing the sale deed have published the notice in the newspaper in connivance with defendant No. 2 whereas the said agreement to sale is binding on the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 2.

¶41

4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 remained ex-parte before the trial Court.

¶42

5. Learned trial Court framed 4 issues and answered

¶43

them as stated below :-

¶44

वादप्रश्न	नि�ष्कर्ष�
`1)` क्याग्रामपतोरा`,` तह०पाट�`,`	`"` प्रमाणि,त�हीं`"`
जि�लादुर्ग�मेंस्थि��तकाष्तकारीध�हा
वादभूनिमख०�०`492,` रकबा`0.40`
हे०केबाबतपुसउसाहूव्श्रीमतीसूर�ा

¶45

6

¶46

बाईसाहूकेद्वाराअप�ेपुत्रप्रतितवादीक्र० -2 रुपेश कुमार साहू के �ाम से नि�ष्पानिदत आम मुख्त्यार�ामा निद�ांक 18/09/2012 फ�; एवमकूटरति=तहै ? ? 2) क्याप्रतितवादीक्र० - 2 द्वारा " प्रमाणि,त�हीं " प्रतितवादीक्र० - 1 केपक्षमेंउक्तफ�; एवंकूटरति=तआममुख्त्यार�ामानिद�ांक 18/09/2012 के आधार पर नि�ष्पानिदतवादभूनिमकानिवक्रयइकरार�ामा निद�ांक 27/11/2012 अवैधएवंशून्य है ? 3) क्यावादीर्ग, , प्रतितवादीर्ग, के " �हीं ” निवरुद्ध उक्त वादभूनिम में अ�ावश्यक ह�तक्षेपकर�ेसे��ायीरूपसेनि�र्षेतिधत निकए�ा�ेकेसम्बन्धमें��ायीनि�र्षेधाज्ञा कीतिIक्रीप्राप्तकर�ेकेअतिधकारीहै ? 4) सहायताएवंवादव्यय ? " कंतिIका 34 केअ�ुसार ”

¶47

6. In sum and substance, learned trial Court has

¶48

recorded findings against the plaintiffs and has
held that they have failed to prove that the
power of attorney dated 18/09/2012 is a fake and
forged document and they have further failed to
prove that the agreement to sale dated
27/11/2012 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour
of defendant No. 1, on the basis of the said
power of attorney, is illegal and void and as

¶49

7

¶50

such, dismissed the suit holding that plaintiffs
are not entitled for decree of declaration that
agreement to sale dated 27/11/2012 as null and
void and for permanent injunction, as claimed by
them.

¶51

Submission of the Parties

¶52

7. Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record as the plaintiffs have duly proved that the power of attorney dated 18/09/2012 is a fake and forged document and consequently, the agreement to sale dated 27/11/2012 is illegal and void. He would further submit that the trial Court ought to have considered the report of the handwriting expert

¶53

(Ex. P/14) namely Smt. Sunanda Dhenge (PW-2) who
has clearly opined that the thumb impression on
the power of attorney dated 18/09/2012 is
different and does not match with the original
thumb impression of plaintiff No. 1 Pusauram, as

¶54

8

¶55

such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶56

8. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, learned counsel for

¶57

respondent/defendant No. 1, would support the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court and submit that defendant No. 1 had also
filed civil suit No. 28A/13 seeking decree for
specific performance of contract and permanent
injunction wherein though the trial Court has
clearly held that it has not been proved that
the power of attorney is a fake and forged
document and further the agreement to sale
executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of
defendant No. 2 has also not been proved to be

¶58

illegal and void but proceeded to grant the
decree of refund of sale consideration in favour
of defendant No. 1 herein and refused to grant

¶59

decree for specific performance of contract,
which is subject matter of First Appeal No.
408/2019 preferred by the defendant No. 1 before
this Court and since, the said findings recorded
by the trial Court have neither been questioned
by the plaintiffs herein by way of either filing
an appeal or cross-objection, they have attained
finality. As such, the trial Court has rightly

¶60

9

¶61

dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs by
recording the findings which are strictly in
accordance with law and therefore, the instant
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶62

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶63

Point for determination

¶64

10. The point for determination involved in this first appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs is as follows :-

¶65

“Whether the trial Court is justified in
dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs
holding that the power of attorney dated
18/09/2012 is neither fake nor forged and
accordingly, the agreement to sale dated
27/11/2012 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour
of defendant No. 1 is not illegal and void ?”

¶66

Discussion and Analysis

¶67

11. The plaintiffs have taken the plea of fraud/forgery in case of registered instrument i.e., power of attorney dated 18/09/2012

¶68

10

¶69

alleging that the power of attorney has
fraudulently been got executed by defendant No.2
who is the son of plaintiff No.1 and grandson of
plaintiff No.2. The Supreme Court in the matter
of Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill1 has held that a
registered document prima facie would be valid
in law and the onus of proof would be on a
person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption.

¶70

12. Though the plaintiffs have led evidence to establish that the power of attorney is forged and fabricated, but, he had not initiated any action against defendant No.2 (power of attorney holder) and their son-in-law Hemshankar, witness

¶71

to the power of attorney. Plaintiff No.1 has
admitted in his cross-examination that he is
still residing with his son/defendant No.2 and
he has also admitted that he had appointed the
lawyer for his son. In that view of the matter
the trial Court has clearly recorded a
finding that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2
are acting in collusion to defeat the claim of

¶72

1 (2021) 15 SCC 300

¶73

11

¶74

defendant No.1, who has also instituted suit for
specific performance. The finding recorded by
the trial Court that the plaintiffs are in
collusion with defendant No.2 to defeat the
claim of defendant No. 1 is the correct finding
of fact based on evidence available on record.

¶75

13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vidyadhar v. Manikrao and Anr.2 has held that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

¶76

14. In this regard, the finding recorded by the trial Court that defendant No. 2 did not enter into witness box though he is residing with the plaintiffs i.e. his father and grandmother goes against the plaintiffs. In that behalf, the trial Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the plaintiffs stating that though they are residing along with defendant No. 2 and contesting the case together as the plaintiff No. 1 in his cross-examination has admitted that as he is sharing residence with his son i.e.

¶77

2 (1999) 3 SCC 573

¶78

12

¶79

defendant No. 2, he could be the best witness to
depose with reference to the complete factum of
the transaction leading to execution of power of
attorney dated 18/09/2012 and agreement to sale
dated 27/11/2012. As such, inference drawn by
the trial Court against the plaintiffs is based

¶80

on evidence available on record. Further, the
finding of the trial Court that the subject
instrument is registered instrument, thus,
substantive evidence ought to have been brought
on record to impeach the credibility of
registered instrument i.e. power of attorney
(Ex.P/1), is also correct finding of fact based
on evidence available on record. The trial Court

¶81

has disbelieved the opinion of the handwriting
expert Smt. Sunanda Dhenge (PW-2). Since she has
admitted that her opinion is based on the
certified copy of power of attorney dated
18/09/2012 and she has not examined the original
document, which could have been examined with

¶82

the leave of that court, however, in that
regard, no effort has been made to examine the
original power of attorney.

¶83

15. In this regard, Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through Legal

¶84

13

¶85

Representatives and Another3 may be noticed
herein profitably wherein it has been held that
evidence of handwriting expert must be evaluated
with caution and needs corroboration.

¶86

16. However, it may be noticed herein that defendant

¶87

No. 1 herein had also filed Civil Suit No.
28A/13 wherein the trial Court has clearly
recorded the finding that the power of attorney
dated 18/09/2012 is neither fake nor a forged
document and the agreement of sale dated
27/11/2012 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour
of defendant No. 1, on the basis of said power
of attorney, is legal document and after
recording all the findings in favour of
defendant No. 1, the trial Court dismissed his
suit for specific performance of contract and
only granted decree for refund of sale
consideration, which has been challenged by the
defendant No. 1 herein in First Appeal No.
408/2019, however, the said findings recorded by
the trial Court with regard to power of attorney
not being a fake and forged document as well as
the agreement to sale being absolutely legal,
have not been challenged by the plaintiffs

¶88

3 (2019) 14 SCC 220

¶89

14

¶90

herein by either filing a cross-objection or by
way of appeal, therefore, the said findings
recorded by the trial Court have attained
finality and are binding upon the plaintiffs
herein and first appeal filed by defendant No. 1
herein, being First Appeal No. 408/2019 (Sanjit
Kumar Vishwakarma v. Rupesh Kumar Sahu &
Others), which we have also decided today by
passing a separate judgment.

¶91

17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. We do not find any merit in this appeal warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶92

18. Accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶93

19. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶94

Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge Judge

¶95

Harneet

Pusauram Sahu v. Sanjeet Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pusauram Sahu v. Sanjeet Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Jain Shrishrimal Vs the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Umedi Rana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rukhmani Singh Vs Jamuna Prasad Sinha

Sanjit Kumar Vishwakarma Vs Rupesh Kumar Sahu

Jagriti Sonant @ Deepa Vs Ramesh Kumar Sonant

Shailesh Bajpai Vs Smt. Poonam Kumari Bajpai