2026:CGHC:7784 SOURABH BHILWAR SOURABH BHILWAR NAFR Date: 2026.02.12 17:20:26 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 316 of 2017 Smt. Gouri Bai Patel W/o Lekhram Patel, Aged About 48 Years Caste Aghariya, R/o Village Kandadongar, Police Station Jharband, Tahsil Paikamal, Civil And Revenue District Bargadh Odissa ........Plaintiff ... Appellant versus

1 - Indar Choudhary (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated

02/02/2026

2 - Smt. Dashmoti W/o Tikaram Choudhary, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Tilanjanpur, P.O. Bhagatdevri, Police Station Saankra, Tahsil Pithoura, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Mahasamund, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ......Defendants …. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

12/02/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/

appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. H- 19-A/2016 (Smt. Gouri Bai vs. Indar Choudhary & Ors.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Pithora, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2014, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The appellant/ plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and, in alternative, partition and separate possession pleading inter alia that the suit land, being part of Khasra No. 54/1, admeasuring 10.425 acres, is ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, in which the plaintiff has a right by birth. Under a family arrangement, defendant No.1 retained certain land and allotted the suit land as the plaintiff’s share, while the remaining land was recorded in the names of his sons, who have since alienated their portions. It was agreed that the son who would take care of defendant No.1 would remain in possession of the suit land during his lifetime, and thereafter the property would devolve upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No.1 fraudulently executed a nominal sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 without consideration, though defendant No.2 has no independent source of income. The said sale deed is alleged to be not binding upon the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and in the alternative, partition to the extent of half share and separate possession.

3. Per contra, defendants No.1 and 2 jointly filed their written statement and contended therein that the suit property is not ancestral coparcenary property of the plaintiff. The alleged partition of the property between defendant No.1 and his sons was made with the plaintiff’s knowledge and consent, who did not claim any share at that time. Defendant No.1, due to personal expenses on medical treatment and funeral of his spouse, sold his share of the property to defendant No.2 for consideration, which has been duly recorded in the revenue records in favour of the son of defendant No.2, Chandra Shekhar, with delivery of possession. Defendant No.2 has her own assets and paid the full consideration; hence the sale deed and subsequent mutation are valid and binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not paid the requisite court fee to challenge the registered sale deed, and the suit is thus not maintainable. In view of the above, the defendants pray that the suit be dismissed.

4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as well as docume