Jageshwar Vs Sukhcharan — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Jageshwar Vs Sukhcharan — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the second appeal was dismissed at the motion stage itself, leaving intact the modified decree dated 05/01/2019 of the first appellate court (plaintiff declared owner of Khasra No. 669; defendants 1 to 7 declared owners of Khasra No. 631 with possession confirmed and mutual permanent injunctions).

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC so as to permit interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. +1 more

Court's answer

Findings of fact recorded by both the courts below cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law; the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or misapplication of law in the findings recorded.

Ratio / Principle

The questions sought to be raised in the second appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to findings of fact and do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC; the appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC.

Key takeaways

The impugned judgments of the learned trial Court and of the learned first appellate Court are just and proper with no illegality or infirmity; no case having been made out by the appellants, the second appeal was dismissed at the motion stage itself.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal — Section 100 CPC — Substantial Question of Law — Dismissal at Motion Stage. Defendants (appellants) challenged, under Section 100 CPC, the concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge Class-II, Pathalgaon (suit decreed 23/02/2017 in favour of the plaintiff's claim of declaration of title, possession and perpetual injunction over Khasara No. 631/669, Village Gala, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, founded on a registered sale deed dated 29.03.2010 executed by Khiro Bai, defendant No. 9) and of the Additional Judge, ADJ Court, Kunkuri (judgment and decree dated 05/01/2019 in C. Reg. Civil Appeal No.10-A/2017 partly allowing the appeal and the counter-claim of defendants 1 to 7, splitting the parcel: plaintiff declared owner of Khasra No. 669, defendants 1 to 7 declared owners of Khasra No. 631 with possession confirmed and mutual permanent injunctions). Held: interference in a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law; findings of fact of both courts below cannot be disturbed unless shown perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles, and no such perversity, illegality or misapplication was demonstrated; the proposed questions merely sought re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to findings of fact and raised no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC; the impugned judgments being just and proper, the second appeal was dismissed at the motion stage itself. (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 05/01/2019 in C. Reg. Civil Appeal No.10-A/2017 (Jageshwar & Ors Vs. Sukhcharan & Ors) whereby the first appellate court partly allowed the defendants' civil appeal as well as the plaintiff's suit and their counter-claim, and issued a modified decree declaring the plaintiff owner of Khasra No. 669 (with possession and permanent injunction in his favour) and declaring defendants 1 to 7 owners of Khasra No. 631 with possession confirmed and a permanent injunction in their favour.¶26
Learned Additional Judge to the Court of Additional District Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur, C.G. · 2019-01-05
Prior proceeding
Civil Suit No.12-A/2012 (Sukhcharan Vs. Jageshwar & Ors) instituted before the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, C.G.; judgment dated 23/02/2017. The plaintiffs sought declaration of title, possession and perpetual injunction over land bearing Khasara No. 631/669, Village Gala, Patwari Halka No.6, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, claiming purchase from Khiro Bai (defendant No. 9) vide registered sale deed dated 29.03.2010; defendants 1 to 7 filed a joint written statement and a counter-claim asserting ancestral title and adverse possession.¶26
Prior proceeding
Trial court framed issues, considered the evidence and material on record, and allowed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had established his case by oral and documentary evidence.¶34
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.3 (defendant No. 8, State of Chhattisgarh) remained ex-parte in the suit.¶33
Prior proceeding
First appellate stage: defendants appealed in C. Reg. Civil Appeal No.10-A/2017; the first appellate court partly allowed the civil appeal and partly allowed the plaintiff's suit as well as the counter-claim of Defendant Nos. 01 to 07, passing the modified decree set out at ¶¶38–42 (plaintiff declared owner of Khasra No. 669; defendants 1 to 7 declared owners of Khasra No. 631 with possession confirmed; mutual permanent injunctions).¶37