Dismissed¶31

Digambar Gir v. Keshar Prasad And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2025SA/98/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal; dismissal at admission stage; no substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact; declaration of title and permanent injunction; Khasra No.349, 1.01 acre, village Portha, Sakti, Janjgir-Champa; Rangnath Mahadev Mandir Sarvarakar; Shiv Mandir near darri talab; exchange of land by Hiraram from Ramdayal Teli; donation to temple; Misal Bandobast 1938-39; record of rights Ex.P/1 1954-55; forged Panchayat resolution Ex.D/1 dated 27.06.2000; Tahsildar order 31.03.2010; SDO appeal dismissed 26.07.2010; Civil Suit No.22A/2010; Civil Appeal No.6A/2013; affirmation of concurrent decrees; plaintiff failed to prove ancestral ownership.

What did the court decide?

Both courts below made a concurrent finding of fact that a Shiv Mandir is situated near darri talab in Village Portha, constructed by Hiraram, grandfather of Defendant No.1.

Digambar Gir Vs Keshar Prasad And Anr. — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the subject land (Khasra No.349, 1.01 acre, village Portha) belongs to the appellant/plaintiff's family, or was exchanged by Hiraram from Ramdayal Teli and donated to Rangnath Mahadev Mandir/Shiv Mandir. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Both courts below made a concurrent finding of fact that a Shiv Mandir is situated near darri talab in Village Portha, constructed by Hiraram, grandfather of Defendant No.1.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

It has been found that the subject land was exchanged by the grandfather of Defendant No.1 (Hiraram) from one Ramdayal Teli and donated to Rangnath Mahadev Mandir; the record of rights (Ex.P/1) of 1954-55 and the Khasra of 1938-39 record the land in the name of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir.

¶26

Key takeaways

The plaintiff/appellant did not prove by any cogent evidence, in any manner, that the subject land belongs to his family.ratio¶26
The findings of both courts below rest on proper appreciation of the evidence on record; there is no infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.ratio¶29
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination in this Second Appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal dismissed at the admission stage. The plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction over Khasra No.349 (1.01 acre), village Portha, claiming ancestral recording (Misal Bandobast 1938-39) and asserting that the land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State as Sarvarakar of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir. The defendants pleaded that Hiraram, grandfather of Defendant No.1, had exchanged the land from Ramdayal Teli and donated it to Rangnath Mahadev Mandir, and that the plaintiff's name was mutated on a forged Panchayat resolution (Ex.D/1 dated 27.06.2000); the Tahsildar (31.03.2010) restored the Mandir's name and the SDO dismissed the plaintiff's revenue appeal (26.07.2010). The trial Court (Civil Suit No.22A/2010, decree dated 15.01.2013) and the First Appellate Court (Civil Appeal No.6A/2013, decree dated 22.01.2014) concurrently found the exchange-and-donation proved, noted the record of rights (Ex.P/1) of 1954-55 and the 1938-39 Khasra showing the land in the Mandir's name, and held that the plaintiff produced no cogent evidence of family ownership. Holding that these findings involved proper appreciation of evidence and that no substantial question of law arose, the High Court (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) affirmed the concurrent decrees and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11323

¶3

Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.07 17:15:42 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

SA No. 98 of 2014

¶7

Digambar Gir S/o Shri Ganpat Gir Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Portha, P.S. And Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa Civil & Revenue District Janjgir-Champa C.G.

¶8

...Appellant/Plaintiff.

¶9

versus

¶10

Keshar Prasad S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Soni Aged About 40 Years R/o village Portha, P.S. And Tah. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Civil & Revenue District Janjgir-Champa C.G.

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Janjgir-Champa, Distt. JanjgirChampa C.G.

¶12

... Respondents.

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Shri TS Sahu, PL.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

07.03.2025

¶17

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Sakti District-Janjgir-Champa C.G. in Civil Appeal No.6A/2013 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by appellant/plaintiff the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2013 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Class-I, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.22A/2010 wherein suit of plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed, was afÏrmed.

¶18

¶19

For the sake of convenience, parties are described as per their description before the court below.

¶20

Necessary facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for land bearing Khasra No.349, admeasuring area 1.01 acre situated at village Portha, by making averment, that the subject land was recorded in the name of his ancestor, Ragnath, son of Mahadev Gir in Misal Bandobast for the year 1938-39 and they are continuously doing agricultural work in the subject land. Further, the plaintiff and his ancestors are serving as priest in Shiv Mandir situated in village Portha. It has been further averred that the subject land has been wrongly recorded in the name of State as a Sarvarakar of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir.

¶21

In the written statement filed by the defendants, it has been averred that the subject land was exchanged by grandfather of Defendant No.1 namely Hiraram from one Ramdayal Teli. Hiraram donated the said land in the name of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir, village Portha. It is also averred that the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of forged document (Ex.D/1), which is a resolution/proposal of village Panchayat Portha dated 27.06.2000, wrongly mutated his name on the subject land, though no such proposal was passed by the said Gram Panchayat. It has also been averred that Tahsildar, Sakti after due enquiry on 31.03.2010 recorded the subject land in the name of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir Sarvarakar through Collector, Janjgir-Champa. Against the said order, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the concerned SDO which was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2010, therefore, the plaintiff has no right and title on the subject land.

¶22

¶23

Learned trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 10 issues and reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the subject land belongs to his ancestors. Further, it has been found proved that the subject land was exchanged by the grandfather of Defendant No.1 namely Hiraram from Ramdayal Teli and Hiraram has donated the subject land in the name of Shiv Mandir and accordingly the suit was dismissed. Against which, plaintiff preferred First Appeal which was also dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the courts below have erred in appreciating oral and documentary evidence as the appellant/plaintiff has proved the fact that the subject land belongs to his forefathers.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of both the courts below with utmost circumspection.

¶26

There is concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below that a Shiv Mandir is situated near darri talab in Village Portha which was constructed by the grandfather of Defendant No.1 namely Hiraram. It has also been found that the subject land was exchanged by the grandfather of Defendant No.1 from one Ramdayal Teli and donated to Rangnath Mahadev Mandir. Further, in the record of rights (Ex.P/1) pertaining to the year 1954-55 the subject land was recorded in the name of Rangnath Mahadev Mandir and the same entry was also recorded in the Khasra pertaining to the year 1938-39. Moreover, plaintiff/appellant has not proved by way of any cogent evidence, in any manner, that the subject land belongs to their family.

¶27

For the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the findings arrived at by

¶28

¶29

both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no infirmity or illegality in the said findings warranting any interference by this Court.

¶30