2026:CGHC:6981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 420 of 2015 Surendra Nath S/o Kedar Nath Bramhan Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Digitally signed by SHOAIB S A H N O W A A I R B ANWAR D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.10 Chhattisgarh

10:24:56 +0530 ... Appellant versus

1 - Gopal S/o Raturam Uraon Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sonpur, Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Surajpur, District-

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Appellant : Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board

09.02.2026

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/defendant challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge Pratappur Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.01A/2015 (Gopal Ram vs. Surendra Nath & Another) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class- I, Pratappur Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit 126A/2011 (Gopal Ram vs. Surendra Nath & Another) For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. (a) The plaintiffs have instituted the present civil suit against the defendant seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land situated at Village Sonpur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur, bearing Khasra Nos. 393 and 396, admeasuring 0.40 and 0.99 hectares respectively . It was pleaded that that the father of Plaintiff No.1 and husband of Plaintiff No.2, late Raturam, purchased land bearing old Khasra Nos. 254, 259, 266 and 267, total area 1.397 hectares, from the landowner Maniram on 18.05.1978 and remained in peaceful possession and cultivation thereof during his lifetime. After his death, the plaintiffs have been in continuous, peaceful possession and cultivation of the said land. During the Sarguja survey settlement operations (1980– 1990), the old khasra numbers were renumbered as new Khasra Nos. 396, 436, 532 and 393 with corresponding areas.

(b) According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit land and has never been in possession thereof. However, on the basis of a forged sale deed, Defendant No.1 applied for mutation during settlement proceedings, and by order dated 03.07.2000 passed in Revenue Case No. 396/A-6A/1999–2000, the Settlement Officer directed the name of Defendant No.1 to be recorded as owner and the plaintiffs as occupants, with liberty to approach the competent civil court. The said order is illegal and contrary to facts and law.

(c) Relying on the said order, Defendant No.1 has been threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs and to forcibly harvest the crops, and is attempting to interfere with their peaceful possession. The cause of action arose in June 2001 when such threats were given. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration of their title over the suit land and a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.1 or anyone claiming through him from entering upon or interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit land.

3. (A) The defendant No. 1 in his written statement, denied the plaintiffs’ claim of purchase by late Raturam from Maniram in 1978. He asserts that the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Budhram under the Sarguja Settlement Patta dated 28.05.1952, and that on the same date Budhram executed a sale deed in his favour for Rs.100/-, transferring title and possession to him. Since then, Defendant No.1 claims to be in continuous possession and cultivation of the land.

(B) The defendant admits renumbering of the old khasra numbers into Khasra Nos. 393 and 396 bu