##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:5427

Digitally NAFR

signed by

JYOTI

JYOTI SHARMA

SHARMADate:

2026.02.02

1 +0 0: 55 30 0:59 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

SA No. 548 of 2025

1. Smt. Ful Bai W/o Shri Kanti Kumar Aged About 52 Years R/o

Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.)

2. Kanti Kumar S/o Shri Bhurwa Aged About 64 Years R/o Village -

Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-Champa

(C.G.)

3. Shivshankar S/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 27 Years R/o

Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.)

4. Pushpalata Wd/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 47 Years R/o

Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.)

5. Laxmi Kumari D/o Late Shri Nandlal Aged About 25 Years R/o

Village - Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, District - Janjgir-

Champa (C.G.)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Shanti Lal Yadav S/o Bhurwa Aged About 62 Years R/o Vill -

Sukulpara (Kharoud), Tah. Pamgarh, Dist- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Janjgir, District -

Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate

For Respondent NO. 1 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate

2

For Respondent/ State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

31.01.2026

1. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC)

against the judgment & decree dated 09.09.2025 passed by the

Learned Fourth District Judge, Janjgir, dist Janjgir-Champa in Civil

Appeal No. 27-A/2025 (Shanti Lal Yadav and Anr. Vs. Smt. Ful Bai

and Ors.) whereby the appeal of the plaintiff has been allowed in

part which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated

21.03.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Judge, Pamgarh,

District Janjgir-Champa to the Court of First Civil Judge Senior

Division Janjgir whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the

suit of the plaintiff/ respondent herein. For the sake of

convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status

before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration of title and injunction

pleading inter alia that the disputed land was recorded in the

revenue records in the name of late Bhurwa and others up to the

year 2004–05, and Khasra No. 2450/1 stood recorded exclusively

in the name of Bhurwa. Late Bhurwa was the father of the plaintiff

and defendant No. 2, the grandfather of defendants No. 3 and 5,

and the father-in-law of defendants No. 1 and 5. The disputed

3

lands comprising Khasra Nos. 1533, 1535 and 1537 were jointly

recorded in the name of Bhurwa and others, whereas Khasra Nos.

1534 and 2450/1 were recorded in the name of Bhurwa alone. It is

pleaded that defendant No. 1 has illegally got the disputed land

mutated in her name without any lawful authority. The plaintiff

further submits that with respect to Khasra No. 2450/1

admeasuring 0.30 acres, the defendants have produced a forged

and fabricated Will before the Court. Suspecting the genuineness

of the said Will, the plaintiff obtained a certified copy from the office

of the Sub-Registrar, Pamgarh, and upon comparison with the Will

produced by the defendants, it was found that the Will relied upon

by the defendants shows material alterations and tampering,

thereby rendering it suspicious and invalid. It is further pleaded that

on the basis of the partition deed and title documents produced by

the plaintiff, along with the certified copy of the Will dated

24.04.2002, the disputed land is the property of the plaintiff and is

liable to be partitioned. The plaintiff states that Khasra Nos. 1534

and 2450/1 were purchased by late Bhurwa from his own earnings

derived from his employment at Kati, and that there was no other

source of income available to the family at the relevant time. Late

Bhurwa had been working at Korba during the years 1980–90, and

the said lands were acquired from his personal income. The

plaintiff further submits that d