Second appeal challenging dismissal of a suit for declaration of title, possession and injunction against a sale deed, founded on an alleged 1994 family partition. The partition deed was never produced; fraud allegations were unproven. The court held no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC and dismissed the appeal.
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:7490
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 603 of 2015
Bhagat Ram S/o Mahesh, Aged About 65 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Durpa, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh........Plainti', Chhattisgarh
.. Appellant
versus
Digitally signed bySHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2026.02.11 17:23:11 +0530
3 - Shyam Sunder S/o Ramji, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Durpa, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
2
4 - Chhote Lal S/o Ramji, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Durpa, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
5 - Sohan Ram S/o Dashrath, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Durpa, Tahsil Navagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh........Defendants, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellant : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
11.02.2026
3
learned Civil Judge, Class- II, Navagarh, District JanjgirChampa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 14A/2008 (Bhagatram vs. Heeralal and Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.
4
said family partition, the Additional Tahsildar, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), passed an order and accordingly the revenue records were duly mutated. Thereafter, defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 4, by playing fraud, got their names entered in the revenue records and sold the disputed land to defendant No. 5 by way of a registered sale deed dated 24.06.2008.
that the suit land, along with other lands situated at Village Durpa, was recorded in the names of the ancestors of the plainti' and defendant Nos. 01 to 04. It was further pleaded that the said land had already been sold by the plainti' and his father, and that no partition ever took place in the year 1994. The documents produced in the mutation proceedings pertain to the period prior to 1994. It was alleged that the plainti', by preparing false and fabricated documents, is attempting to grab the suit land. As per the mutation records, the plainti' and his father were not allotted 3.90 acres of land, but were allotted only 3.40 acres, and even that was wrongly got recorded by including the land belonging to defendant Nos. 01 to 04. The suit land continues to be recorded in the revenue records in the names of the defendants, and the
5
same was lawfully sold by defendant Nos. 01, 02, and 04 to defendant No. 05 by way of a duly registered sale deed dated 04.06.2008.
6
this regard. Such non-consideration goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the ?ndings. Learned counsel further submits that the learned courts have committed a grave error in not holding the disputed land to be ancestral property, even though the material on record clearly establishes its ancestral nature. The absence of any proper ?nding on this vital issue renders the impugned judgments unsustainable in law. It is also submitted that the learned courts have wrongly upheld the sale deed dated 24.06.2008 executed in favour of defendant No. 5, without appreciating that the transferor had no exclusive right or authority to alienate the ancestral/joint family property, and therefore the said sale deed is illegal, void and not binding on the appellant.
7
mutation register did not bear the signatures or thumb impression of Ramji, the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The learned Trial Court also noticed material contradictions in the testimonies of the plainti'’s witnesses regarding the alleged partition. On scrutiny of the mutation records, it was found that only the plainti' and his son had signed the same and not Ramji, which seriously weakened the case of the plainti'.
8
and are pure ?ndings of fact. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been pointed out. In the present second appeal, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. This Court ?nds no ground to interfere with the concurrent ?ndings recorded by both the Courts.
9
challenge to concurrent ?ndings 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.
10
which is required under Section 100 of the CPC in. 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 First Appellate Court are just and proper and there is no illegality and in?rmity at all.
dismissed .
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
Shoaib
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant proved title and possession over the suit land based on an alleged written family partition of 1994 that was never produced.
Whether the second appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and anotherRelied on¶13
(2019) 8 SCC 637 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagat Ram
Heera Lal
Ishwar
Shyam Sunder
Chhote Lal
Sohan Ram
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
