2026:CGHC:6814-DB The date when The date when The date when the the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on is reserved pronounced the website Operative Full

09.12.2025 06.02.2026 -- 06.02.2026 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 09.12.2025 Judgment delivered on: 06.02.2026 FA No. 63 of 2019

1 - Vidhi Narayan Shukla (Died) Through Legal Heirs- 1.1 - Smt. Shail Shukla W/o Late Vidhi Narayan Shukla, Aged About 75 Years R/o Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 1.2 - Vivek Shukla, S/o Late Vidhi Narayan Shukla, Aged About 47 Years R/o Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 1.3 - Versha Mishra, D/o Late Vidhi Narayan Shukla, R/o Balodabazar, Dist.- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Appellants versus

1 - Ramnaini Bai D/o Yadunandan Prasad Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Akaltara, Tahsil Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa C.G., Krishak Gram Dhurrabandha, PH No.19, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Distirct- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh................(Defendants)

2 - Smt. Chameli Yadu W/o Johan Yadu Aged About 40 Years R/o Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, Kashtkar- Dhurrabandha, PH No. 19, Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present District- Balodabazar-

Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District-

Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

... Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar–Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed and the counter-claim preferred by the respondent No.1 was allowed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

2. The pleadings made in the plaint by the plaintiff, are that the suit land situated at Mauja Dhurrabandha, P.H. No. 19, R.N.M., Tehsil Bhatapara, as described in Schedule ‘A’ appended to the plaint, bearing Khasra No. 11 and admeasuring 15.95 acres, was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 on 21.03.1972 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,200/-. Upon receipt of the consideration amount, defendant No. 1 delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession thereof. It is further pleaded that due to unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiff could not get her name mutated in the revenue records, as a result of which the name of defendant No. 1 continued to be recorded as the owner, though the plaintiff remained in actual physical possession of the land. Subsequently, the plaintiff submitted an application before the Court of the Tehsildar, Bhatapara, seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. In Revenue Case No. 10-A/6 of 2006–07, an attorney appeared on behalf of defendant No. 1 on 19.04.2006. The plaintiff alleges that without obtaining any decree declaring the earlier sale transaction to be illegal or non-binding, defendant No. 1, taking undue advantage of her name being recorded in the revenue records, executed a registered sale deed dated 13.10.2011 in favour of defendant No. 2 for a purported consideration of Rs. 19,43,000/-. The said sale deed, according to the plaintiff, is sham, collusive and without consideration, executed with the intention to harass the plaintiff and to defeat her lawful rights.

It is further contended that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land since the date of purchase, i.e., 21.03.1972, and that defendant No. 1 had no authority to alienate the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2. Desp