Paras Pandey Vs Nohar Prasad ( Dead) through His Lrs. (a). Manoj Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16412

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 658 of 2025

¶6

SHOAIB ANWAR

¶7

Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.04.13 12:23:39 +0530

¶8

Paras Pandey S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Post Arjuni, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶9

--- Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Nohar Prasad S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey ( Now Died ) Through Legal Representative Nil

¶12

1.1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Late Nohar Pandey Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Post Arjuni, Tahsil Kasdol, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶13

1.2 - Mukesh S/o Late Nohar Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Post Arjuni, Tahsil Kasdol, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶14

1.3 - Preeti Tiwari D/o Late Nohar Pandey Aged About 34 Years (Wife Of Dinesh Tiwari), R/o Balgangadhar Tilak Ward, Janta Colony, V.T.C. Raipur, Post Gudhiyari, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G.

¶15

1.4 - Ashwari Tiwari D/o Late Nohar Pandey Aged About 32 Years

¶16

2

¶17

(Wife Of Girja Shankar Tiwari),r/o Baba Ghasidas Ward No. 02, Kharora, Post Kharora, Up Tahsil Kharora, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶18

1.5 - Smt. Shanti Bai Pandey W/o Late Nohar Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Post Arjuni (B), Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶19

2 - Mordhwaj S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶20

3 - Ravi Prakash S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶21

4 - Dushyant Kumar S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶22

5 - Smt. Gajendra Pandey W/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 75 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶23

6 - Smt. Surekha W/o Ajay Sharma Aged About 42 Years R/o Kadambari Nagar, District Durg, C.G.

¶24

7 - Smt. Madhuri W/o Devesh Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Van Colony Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G.

¶25

3

¶26

8 - Smt. Shakuntala W/o Mukesh Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Jhanda Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. , At Present R/o Dongargarh, Bhandari Complex, Sispara, District Rajnandgaon, C.G.

¶27

9 - Smt. Minti Pandey W/o Shailendra Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Ani Colony, House No. 1249/3, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G.

¶28

10 - Teknarayan, S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey (Now Died) Through Legal Representatives Nil

¶29

10.1 - Smt. Manorama W/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Tahsil Kasdol, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶30

10.2 - Suman D/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶31

10.3 - Omprakash S/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Tahsil Kasdol, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶32

10.4 - Hemprakash S/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, Tahsil Kasdol, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶33

10.5 - Smt. Sudha W/o Santosh Mishra Aged About 35 Years (D/o Late Teknarayan Pandey), R/o Village Raikheda, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, C.G.

¶34

4

¶35

11 - Smt. Neelam Pandey W/o Late Bhola Ram Pandey Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Infront Of Risda Road, Near Kali Mandir, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶36

12 - Sailendra Pandey S/o Late Bhola Ram Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Infront Of Risda Road, Near Kali Mandir, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶37

13 - Hemant Pandey S/o Late Bhola Ram Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Infront Of Risda Road, Near Kali Mandir, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶38

14 - Devesh Pandey S/o Late Bhola Ram Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Infront Of Risda Road, Near Kali Mandir, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶39

15 - Purendra Pandey S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Rinwasarar, P.H. No. 2, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) At Present R/o Infront Of

¶40

5

¶41

Risda Road, Near Kali Mandir, Balodabazar, District BalodabazarBhatapara (C.G.)

¶42

16 - Kamal Pandey S/o Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey Aged About 47 Years R/o Thakurdeva, Chowk Bazari, Rawabhatha, Ward No. 15, Birgaon, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶43

17 - Smt. Maheshwari W/o Rishikesh Shukla Aged About 56 Years R/o Mandir Chowk, Bramhanpara, Pithora, District- Mahasamund, C.G.

¶44

18 - Smt. Nandini Choubey W/o Mukesh Choubey Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Maharajpur, Tahsil Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, C.G.

¶45

19 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Collector Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶46

--- Respondent(s)

¶47

SA No. 712 of 2025

¶48

Paras Pandey S/o Late Shri Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 63 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No.02, Tahsil- Kasdol Distt- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶49

--- Appellant

¶50

Versus

¶51

1 - Nohar Prasad ( Dead) Through His Lrs. (A). Manoj Kumar Nill

¶52

6

¶53

1.1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Late Nohar Prasad Pandey Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.O.- Arjuni, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶54

1.2 - Mukesh S/o Late Nohar Prasad Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.O.- Arjuni, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶55

1.3 - Priti Tiwari D/o Late Nohar Prasad Pandey Aged About 35 Years (W/o Dinesh Tiwari), Address- Balgangadhar Tilak Ward, Janta Colony, V T C, Raipur, P.O.- Gudiyari, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, C.G.

¶56

1.4 - Ishwari Tiwari D/o Late Nohar Prasad Pandey Aged About 35 Years (W/o Girija Shankar Tiwari), Address- Baba Ghasidas Ward No. 02, Kharora, Distt.- Raipur, C.G.

¶57

1.5 - Smt. Shanti Bai Pandey W/o Late Nohar Prasad Pandey Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.O.- Arjuni, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶58

2 - Mordwaj S/o Late Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶59

3 - Ravi Prakash S/o Late Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶60

7

¶61

4 - Dushyant Kumar S/o Late Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶62

5 - Smt. Gajendra Pandey W/o Late Guptnarayan Pandey Aged About 71 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶63

6 - Smt. Surekha W/o Ajay Sharma Aged About 43 Years R/o Kadambari Nagar, Distt. Durg, C.G.

¶64

7 - Smt. Madhuri W/o Devesh Sharma Aged About 41 Years R/o Forest Colony, Gariyaband, Distt. Gariyaband, C.G.

¶65

8 - Smt. Shankuntala W/o Mukesh Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Jhanda Chowk, Raipur, C.G., Present Address- Dongargarh Bhandari Complex, Sispara, Distt.- Rajnandgaon, C.G.

¶66

9 - Smt. Minti Pandey W/o Shailendra Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o N. E. Colony, House No. 1249/3, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. 495002

¶67

10 - Teknarayan (Died) Through Lrs Nil.

¶68

10.1 - Smt. Manorama W/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 68 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, Post- Arjuni (B), Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶69

8

¶70

10.2 - Om Prakash S/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, Post- Arjuni (B), Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶71

10.3 - Hemprakash S/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, Post- Arjuni (B), Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶72

10.4 - Suman D/o Late Teknarayan Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, Post- Arjuni (B), Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶73

10.5 - Smt. Sudha W/o Santosh Kumar Mishra (D/o- Teknarayan Pandey) Aged About 36 Years R/o Raikheda, Tahsil- Tilda, Dist. Raipur, C.G.

¶74

11 - Smt. Neelam Pandey W/o Bholaram Pandey Aged About 69 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G., Present Address- In Front Of Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶75

12 - Shailendra Pandey S/o Late Bholaram Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G., Present Address- In Front Of Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶76

9

¶77

13 - Hemant Pandey S/o Late Bhoram Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G., Present Address- In Front Of Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶78

14 - Devesh Pandey S/o Bholaram Pandey Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda BazaarBhatapara, C.G., Present Address- In Front Of Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Baloda BazaarBhatapara, C.G.

¶79

15 - Purendra Pandey S/o Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Riwasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tahsil- Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G., Present Address- In Front Of Kali Mandir, Risda Road, Baloda Bazar, Tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶80

16 - Kamal Pandey S/o Sutichan Prasad Pandey Aged About 47 Years R/o Thakurdeva, Chowk Bajari, Ravabhata, Ward No. 15, Birgoan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G.

¶81

17 - Smt. Maheshwari W/o Rishikesh Shukla Aged About 57 Years R/o Mandir Chowk, Bhrahman Para, Pithaura, Distt. - Mahasamund, C.G.

¶82

10

¶83

18 - Smt. Nandini Choubey W/o Mukesh Choubey Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Maharajpur, Tahsil- Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, C.G.

¶84

19 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara, C.G.

¶85

--- Respondent(s)

¶86

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶87

For Appellants	:	Shri Advoc Prata	H.B. Agrawal, Senior ate with Shri Vikaram p,Advocate
For Respondents Nos.	1 to :	Shri S	unil Sahu, Advocate
4/Caveators in S.A.	No.
658/2025
For Respondent/State	:	Shri Advoc	Santosh Soni, Govt. ate.

¶88

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶89

Judgment on Board

¶90

09.04.2026

¶91

Since both the appeals assail the common judgment and decree and involve interconnected issues, they were heard and being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶92

Challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025 passed by the first District Judge Balodabazar in Civil Appeal No. 30-A/2024 (Nohar Prasad (dead) through LR’s Manoj Kumar & Others) and Civil Appeal

¶93

11

¶94

No. 22-A/2024 (Paras Pandey vs. Nohar Prasad (dead) through LR’s Manoj Kumar & Others) by which the Civil Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was partly allowed whereas

¶95

the civil Appeal preferred by Paras Pandey was dismissed. The aforesaid civil Appeals were arising out of the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Kasdol District Baloda bazar in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2017 (Nohar Prasad Pandey & Others vs. Paras Pandey & Others) by which the learned trial Court directed for partition of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 5 area 9.834 hectare in equal share of 1/12.

¶96

(a) Before proceeding with the case, it is noteworthy to mention here that earlier the plaintiff Nohar Prasad Pandey preferred Civil Suit No. 17-A/2017 (Nohar Prasad Pandey & Others vs. Paras Pandey & Others) which was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2023, whereby the suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in the suit land situated at Village Rewasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.), as described in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint, comprising five khasra numbers admeasuring 9.834 hectares.

¶97

12

¶98

(b) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 16.08.2023, the defendant No. 1 preferred civil appeal No. 14A/2023 (Paras Pandey vs. Nohar Prasad & Others), which was

¶99

decided by the learned First Additional District Judge Balodabazar by judgment dated 26.02.2024 and remanded back the matter holding that the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Trial Court are hereby set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for carrying out further proceedings. The Trial Court was directed to afford an opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce the genealogical tree and to permit both the plaintiffs and the defendants to make consequential amendments in their pleadings; to peruse its order sheet in respect of witnesses already examined and clearly specify the sequence of the plaintiffs’ witnesses; to frame three additional issues; and thereafter to provide both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and produce documents in support of their respective cases, and to decide

¶100

the matter in accordance with law within a period of two months. The parties was directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.03.2024 for the aforesaid proceedings.

¶101

13

¶102

(c) After remand of the matter, the learned trial Court considered the issue and decided the same on 04.05.2024 holding that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their case on the preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, the suit in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 05, admeasuring 9.834 hectares with land revenue of Rs. 53, is decreed and the following preliminary decree is passed: (i) it is declared that each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/12th share in the suit property situated at Village Rewasarar, P.H. No. 02, Tehsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.), as described in Schedule “A” annexed to the plaint; (ii) the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain possession of their respective shares upon due partition of the suit property; and (iii) after partition and delivery of possession, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, either directly or through any other person, from interfering with the plaintiffs’ respective shares in the suit land.

¶103

(d) Against the said judgment two separate civil appeals preferred by the plaintiff (Civil appeal No. 30-A/2024) and the defendant No. 1 (Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2024), which were

¶104

14

¶105

decided by the common impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2025, whereby the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed in part and the civil appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 was dismissed. In respect of the defendant No.1/appellant herein both the Courts have gave concurrent finding. Thus, these two appeals by the defendant No. 1.

¶106

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be hereinafter referred as per their status before the trial Court.

¶107

The Civil suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking a declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition, and possession in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are real brothers, being the sons of Late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land bearing Khasra No. 05 admeasuring about 9.835 hectares, situated at Village Rewasarar, Tahsil Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, is ancestral property which stood recorded in the name of their father in the revenue records. It is pleaded that during the lifetime of their father, other properties were already partitioned amongst the legal heirs and each heir is in possession of his respective share without any dispute.

¶108

15

¶109

However, the suit property continued to remain joint. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that for the purpose of purchasing a tractor through a bank loan for agricultural development, the suit land was nominally transferred in the name of defendant No. 1 pursuant to a family arrangement, with a clear understanding that after repayment of the loan, the land would be re-partitioned equally among all the brothers. The plaintiffs assert that although the loan was repaid, defendant No. 1 failed to honour the family arrangement and, taking advantage of the revenue entries standing in his name, refused to partition the property and claimed exclusive ownership. Consequently, the plaintiffs claim that each of them, along with defendant No. 1, is entitled to a 1/5th share in the suit property and seek appropriate reliefs.

¶110

The Defendant No. 1, filed his written statement, has denied the material averments of the plaintiffs except the relationship between the parties. It is contended that there had already been a partition effected by their father around the year 1994, whereby different parcels of land were allotted to each son, and the suit property fell exclusively to the share

¶111

16

¶112

of defendant No. 1. He denied the existence of any family arrangement or nominal transfer for the purpose of obtaining a bank loan and asserts that he alone had obtained the loan for the tractor and had repaid the same. He further claims to be in exclusive possession and cultivation of the suit land since 1994 and raises objections that the suit is barred by limitation and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

¶113

The Defendant No. 13, on the other hand, partly supports the case of the plaintiffs by admitting that the suit property is ancestral in nature and that the transfer in favour of defendant No. 1 was made only for the purpose of securing a loan under a family arrangement. It is further stated that due to non-payment of the loan by defendant No. 1, the liability was ultimately discharged through the sale of a house by mutual consent of the family members, and it was agreed that after repayment of the loan, the suit property would be partitioned. However, defendant No. 1 failed to do so and retained the property in his name. Nevertheless, defendant No. 13 disputes the quantum of share claimed by the plaintiffs and contends that each party is entitled to only 1/12th share in the suit property.

¶114

17

¶115

After appreciating the evidence available on record and after

¶116

framing the issues, the learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated 04.05.2024 partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 05 admeasuring 9.834 hectares is ancestral property originally recorded in the name of late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey, and that the plaintiffs and defendants are his Class-I legal heirs. It was found that the defendant No.1 failed to establish any prior partition or exclusive allotment of the suit land in his favour, and mere mutation in revenue records does not confer title. The Court further disbelieved the defendant’s plea regarding payment of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of partition for want of cogent evidence. Relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court concluded that all heirs are entitled to equal shares and declared that each plaintiff has a 1/12th share in the suit property with a right to seek partition and possession. It was also held that the suit is not barred by limitation, as the property remained joint and the plaintiffs’ possession was not conclusively ousted. The Court further found that although other properties of the deceased had been partitioned, the suit land remained joint. Accordingly,

¶117

18

¶118

the suit was decreed by passing a preliminary decree for partition, granting the plaintiffs entitlement to separate possession of their shares and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ shares after partition.

¶119

Against the said judgment and decree, two separate civil appeals were preferred by the plaintiffs as well as Defendant No. 1, which came to be decided by a common impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was partly allowed, which has attained finality and the appeal preferred by Defendant No. 1 was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, both the present appeals have been preferred by Defendant No. 1.

¶120

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as the documents relating to the 1998 partition were essential for proper adjudication and go to the root of the case. The rejection has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. It is further submitted that both the courts have failed to consider that the suit property was already

¶121

19

¶122

partitioned and the appellant was in possession as per revenue records. According to the learned counsel, the suit filed in 2017 challenging the partition dated 15.04.1988 is clearly barred by limitation and should have been dismissed on this ground alone. Hence, the findings are perverse and the suit ought to have been dismissed.

¶123

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (caveators in S.A. No. 658/2025), along with the State counsel, have supported the common impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

¶124

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record.

¶125

The First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, held that the suit property is ancestral/coparcenary property of late Sutikshan Prasad Pandey and that both parties derived their rights therein by birth. It affirmed that the suit was within limitation, as the cause of action arose in December 2016 upon refusal of partition by Defendant No. 01, and the suit filed in 2017 was within the prescribed period. However, the Appellate Court found that the Trial Court erred in applying Section 8 of the

¶126

20

¶127

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in allotting 1/12th share to each plaintiff by treating all heirs equally. It was held that certain coparceners had already separated during the lifetime of the deceased by taking their shares, and thus, they were not entitled to claim further share in the remaining joint property. The Court further disbelieved the defendant’s plea of exclusive allotment in 1988 and payment of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of partition due to lack of credible evidence, and held that mere mutation in revenue records does not confer title. Consequently, the Appellate Court concluded that the remaining coparceners, including the plaintiffs, Defendant No. 01, one brother, and two sisters, were entitled to equal shares, thereby determining 1/8th share each in the suit property. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was partly allowed, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 04.05.2024 were set aside, and a modified preliminary decree for partition was passed declaring 1/8th share of each plaintiff with entitlement to seek partition and possession, along with permanent injunction against interference after delivery of possession, while the appeal of Defendant No. 01 was dismissed.

¶128

21

¶129

While considering the application filed by Defendant No. 1 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure the first appellate Court has rightly held that the document sought to be produced, i.e., the certified copy of the mutation register of the year 1988, merely reflects mutation of the suit land in the name of Defendant No. 1 pursuant to an alleged partition, which fact is already borne out from Ex.P-11 (Mutation Entry No. 03 dated 15.04.1988) available on record. The First Appellate Court further recorded that the said document does not bring any new or material fact affecting the merits of the case and was within the knowledge of Defendant No. 1, which could have been produced at an earlier stage. Accordingly, the application was rejected.

¶130

As far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant No.1 with regard to production of certain documents in the appeal is concerned, such permission cannot be granted as a matter of course, nor can additional evidence be introduced at the whim or convenience of a litigating party. In fact, the general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in an appeal under

¶131

22

¶132

Section 96 of the CPC. It is noteworthy to mention here that once trial had concluded and the decree was under challenged in an appeal, the appellants cannot be permitted to fill the gaps in their case by seeking to adduce further material to fortify the claim that was fundamentally flawed. (See: Gobind Singh and Ors. v Union of India and Ors. (Civil

¶133

Appeal Nos.5168-5169 of 2011 decided on 9-3-2026 )

¶134

The present Second Appeals, preferred by Defendant No. 1, does not merit consideration and are liable to be dismissed. The learned First Appellate Court, being the final court of facts, has meticulously re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and has recorded wellreasoned and cogent findings. It has rightly held that the suit property is ancestral/coparcenary property of late Sutikshna Prasad Pandey, and that the parties derive their rights therein by birth. The finding of the First Appellate Court that the suit was within limitation is also based on proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the fact that the cause of action arose only in December 2016 when Defendant No. 1 refused partition, and the suit was instituted in 2017 within the prescribed period.

¶135

23

¶136

The First Appellate Court has further rightly disbelieved the plea of Defendant No. 1 regarding exclusive allotment of the suit property in the year 1988 and the alleged payment of Rs. 5 lakhs in lieu of partition, as no cogent, reliable or documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the same. It is a settled principle of law that mere entries in revenue records do not confer title, and the Appellate Court has correctly applied this principle while rejecting the claim of exclusive ownership of Defendant No. 1.

¶137

It is pertinent to mention here that the finding recorded by both the Courts in respect of defendant No.1 is concurrent in nature.

¶138

The scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.

¶139

In the present case, both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently recorded findings, in

¶140

24

¶141

respect of the defendant No.1, on the basis of evidence available on record, that the appellant failed to establish their case by placing cogent and sufficient material. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded.

¶142

The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to concurrent findings 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.

¶143

It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding.

¶144

In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637 , reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against

¶145

25

¶146

any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no

¶147

Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.

¶148

Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law 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 appellants 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 infirmity at all.

¶149

Accordingly, both the appeals are liable to be and are hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

¶150

SD/-

¶151

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶152

Judge

¶153

Shoaib/Gowri

Paras Pandey v. Nohar Prasad ( Dead) through His Lrs. (a). Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

Paras Pandey v. Nohar Prasad ( Dead) through His Lrs. (a). Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Serveshwar Vs Mandul

Basant Kumar Nande Vs Bishmdev @ Vedprakash Nande

Dilip Sahu Vs Kamal Prasad Kasar

Ramkhilawan Vs Dujram

Smt. Sunita Agrawal Vs Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai

Ku. Neha Hindwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh