IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ganesh Ram – Appellant
Versus
Safedram Pradhan – Respondent
SA/99/2016
##PAGE1##
1
SOURABH
2026:CGHC:6367
BHILWAR
Digitally signed by NAFR
SOURABH
BHILWAR
Date: 2026.02.06
17:08:43 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 99 of 2016
Ganesh Ram S/o Late Rajaram, Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kolta, R/o
Village Gosaideeh, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh .....Defendant No.1
... Appellant
versus
1 - Safedram Pradhan S/o Late Rajaram, Aged About 55 Years Caste
Kolta, R/o Village Gosaideeh, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.....Plaintiff
2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raigarh, District-
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh....Defendant No.2
…. Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
04/02/2026
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned
judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned 4th
##PAGE2##2
Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 242-
A/2014 (Ganesh Ram vs. Safedram Pradhan & Anr.), affirming the
judgment and decree dated 06.11.2013 passed by the learned
Civil Judge, Class-I, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil
Suit No. 6-A/2010, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/
defendant No.1 was dismissed. The present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant/ defendant No.1. For the sake of
convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per
their status before the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of title, possession,
and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit property,
being Khasra No. 6, area 2.696 hectares, was purchased by his
father, late Rajaram, from Usha and Radha for a valuable
consideration, which was fully paid and registration of the sale
deed was to be done jointly in the names of plaintiff and
defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that the defendant No.1, by
deceit, had the property registered solely in his name and
unlawfully claimed additional portions of the land. The plaintiff
further pleads that after his father’s death on 06.07.2007, the
defendant No.1 obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the land,
despite prior division of the property under a settlement deed
dated 19.01.2007 and decisions taken in a Panchayat meeting,
including transfer of proceeds and partition of the house. Hence,
the plaintiff sought declaration of title, confirmation of possession
and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from
##PAGE3##3
interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property.
3. Per contra, Defendant No.1, in his written statement, while
denying the entire claim of the plaintiff, contended that the plaintiff
had falsely represented himself as belonging to a tribal community
to secure employment in the Police Department and voluntarily
resigned upon discovery by higher authorities. It was further
pleaded that due to proceedings under Section 170(ख) of the
Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, approximately 10.5 acres of
land in villages Beldagi and Amdala were reverted to tribal
persons, and that the financial obligations of Rajaram, the father
of the parties, including the marriages of the plaintiff and four
sisters of Defendant No.1, weakened his financial position,
necessitating sale of lands. Defendant No.1 denied that the lands
described in Schedule “B” were sold by Rajaram and stated that
he executed the sale deed in his own name with financial
assistance from his father-in-law. He also denied that the lands in
Schedule “A” were partitioned between him and the plaintiff and
submitted that the plaintiff had failed to implead his four sisters as
necessary parties. Accordingly, Defendant No.1 prayed that the
suit be dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary
parties and limitation.
4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary eviden