Appeal against rejection of temporary injunction in a land title and possession suit. The court held that old revenue entries do not establish title or exclusive possession, found no prima facie case, and dismissed the appeal upholding the trial court's order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2026:CGHC:4552
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAHUL JHA
Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.28 13:25:24 +0530
MA No. 233 of 2025
Judgment reserved on 21.01.2026 Judgment delivered on 28.01.2026
Evangelical Trust Association Of North India Through Power Of Attorney Holder Prem Kishore Bagh Aged About 62 Years S/o Late J.S Bagh R/o Village Kutela Thana And Tehsil Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Tehsildar Nazul Korba District Korba (C.G.)
2. Sub Divisional Magistrate Korba District Korba (C.G.)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 4. Agrawal Sabha Korba Through Rajendra Agrawal President Agrawal Sabha Korba R/o Agrasen Bhawan Agrasen Road Korba (C.G.)
5. Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Korba Shri Kishanchand Dawada, President Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Korba R/o Sindhu Bhawan Shaeed Hemu Kalani Nagar Rani Road Korba Teh And District Korba (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
| (Cause-title taken f | rom | Case Information System) |
|---|---|---|
| For Appellant (s) | : |
Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate |
| For Respondents No. 1 to 3/State | : |
Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A. |
| For Respondents No. 4 & 5 | : |
Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate |
2
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) C A V JUDGMENT
3
plaintiff, the plaintiff preferred an application under Section 115 & 116 of the Land Revenue Code for the correction of the names in the revenue records but the same is pending since long. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.
4
5
and structures existing on the suit land, clearly evidencing continuous possession of the Trust and a credible threat of interference by the defendants. Further, the observation that irreparable loss would be caused to Defendants No. 04 and 05 merely on the basis of their recent allotment is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles, particularly when the plaintiffs have been in possession for more than hundred years. The Learned trial Court has failed to apply the well-settled three-fold test for grant of temporary injunction existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and has unjustifiably ignored the earlier order dated 09/05/2024 passed by the Learned District Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04/2024, wherein injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs after due consideration. The finding regarding absence of forcible interference is misconceived, as in a suit for injunction, proof of actual dispossession is not required. A credible apprehension of interference is sufficient, which stands duly established from the pleadings, photographs, and historical documentary evidence on record.
6
7
into effect. No document has been presented to show that any application was submitted before the revenue authorities regarding the granting of ownership rights to the landlords over their non-cultivated land after the implementation of the Zamindari Abolition Act. Thus, no document related to valid ownership appears to have been presented at this stage. The plaintiff trust has not adduced any evidence to demonstrate its physical possession over the entire disputed plot, nor has it presented any document to prove that it acquired valid ownership. Therefore, prima facie, the case does not appear to be in favor of the plaintiff trust.
23. This Court in Sawarni V. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 held that mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question.
24. This was further affirmed in Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 wherein this Court held that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land.
25. In Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 , this Court after considering a catena of judgments,
8
reiterated the principle of law as follows: (SCC OnLine SC para 6)
"6. ... mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose."
26. We may also profitably refer to the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49 wherein it was held that there exists no universal principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct, when there exists evidence to the contrary.”
XXX XXX XXX XXX
36. Mr S.N. Bhat placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752 to contend that the plaintiff was only expected to prove his title to a high degree of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of law argued by the learned Senior Counsel is not one we wish to dispute, the same having been well-settled through numerous decisions of this Court. However, having led in evidence only revenue documents which are essentially fiscal in nature, we have no hesitation in holding that in the present case, the plaintiff has been unable to assert his case to a high degree of probability. It is, therefore, not enough that the plaintiff led in evidence records of rights for a number of years in an attempt to establish his title; such records would not counter the proof of occupancy rights furnished by the defendant, in a test of probative value.
37. This Court in Somnath Burman v. S.P. Raju, (1969) 3 SCC 129 held that possession can be regarded as a better title against all, except the true and lawful owner. Therefore,
9
the multitude of revenue documents put to use to argue that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit property would not adequately meet the demands of proof made by law. The only credible document of title led as evidence in the present case was in favour of the defendant's predecessor-ininterest; hence, it must follow that it is only the defendant who can be declared the lawful owner of the 'B' schedule property.
(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE
Jyoti/Rahul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff-trust established a prima facie case for temporary injunction based on old revenue entries and alleged long possession over suit land.
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal K. PatkarRelied on¶12
(2024) 13 SCC 553 · Who else cites this
Sawarni V. Inder KaurReferred
(1996) 6 SCC 223 · Who else cites this
Balwant Singh v. Daulat SinghReferred
(1997) 7 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P.Referred
2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 · Who else cites this
Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago PatilReferred
(1977) 2 SCC 49 · Who else cites this
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. TempleReferred
(2003) 8 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Somnath Burman v. S.P. RajuReferred
(1969) 3 SCC 129 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Evangelical Trust Association Of North India
Tehsildar Nazul Korba
Sub Divisional Magistrate Korba
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba
Agrawal Sabha Korba Through Rajendra Agrawal
Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Korba Through Shri Kishanchand Dawada
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
