An appellate court cannot set aside a trial court's decree favoring a party without a challenge from the opposing party, ensuring the principle of finality in unchallenged judgments.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.

1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.09.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2015, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff though has been dismissed, however, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court has also been set aside.

2. The present second appeal has been admitted on 22.10.2024 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether first appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in favor of plaintiff whereas that part was not challenged by plaintiff by filing appeal and no cross-appeal was filed by defendants? ”

3. The plaintiff had filed civil suit against the defendants before the learned trial Court for declaration of his title over half share of the suit land total area 2.818 hectare of 20 different khasra numbers situated at village Parasi, Patwari Halka No. 5, Tahsil Marwahi, District Bilaspur, declaring the sale deed dated 20.04.2010, 17.06.2011 and 30.12.2011 are null and void and also for declaring the order passed by Tahsildar Marwahi dated 15.06.2007 and order passed by SDO, Revenue, Pendra Road dated 30.04.2011 are null and void.

4. The plaintiff has pleaded in her plaint that the suit land was originally belongs to late Manmohan, the plaintiff is the daughter of Manmohan and defendant No.1 Radha bai (since deceased). After death of Manmohan, the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 Radha bai. When the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 Radha bai is trying to sale the excess land on 13.04.2010, she filed a civil suit that her mother is trying to alienate property and she is not entitled to alienate the same without there being any proper partition, however, during pendency of the suit her mother Radha bai had sold the suit land Khasra No. 1729/1 area 0.30 acre and Khasra No. 1731/2 area 0.16 to the defendant No. 4 through registered sale deed dated 20.04.2010. Further through registered sale deed dated 17.06.2011 sold the Khasra No. 1021/2 area 0.04 acre, Khasra No. 1021/3 area 0.27 acre and Khasra No. 1266 area 1.59 acre, total 1.90 acre and further sold the land of Khasra No. 1500/1 area 1.10 acre to defendant No.3 through registered sale deed dated 30.12.2011. On 19.05.2007, the Tahsildar Marwahi had passed an order with respect to the partition of the holding and the suit land Khasra No. 1500/1 area 01.10 acre comes in the share the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 Radha bai was not competent to alienate the said land to anyone. Yet she has executed the sale deed the said land. The sale deeds were executed by the defendant No.1 Radha bai was executed with fraudulent intention and to deprive the plaintiff from her property and she is entitled for half share of the property along with the defendant No.1. She also made an objection before the registration office, Marwahi but the sale deed have got registered in the name of prospective purchasers during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, by way of amendment she inserted the relief clause in the plaint for declaring these sale deeds as null and void.

5. The defendant No.1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and denied the plaint averments and pleaded in her written statement that the plaintiff is residing at her matrimonial house and the entire property of late Manmohan is inherited by her and she alienated the part of the property from her own title. She had challenged order dated 15.06.2007 passed by Tahsildar before the Sub Divisional Officer, Pendra Road but her appeal has been dismissed on 30.04.2011. The holding have already been separated, therefore, there is no question of possession over the land of the plaintiff that her land have been possessed by the defendant. There is no cause of action arose in favour of the