2026:CGHC:9024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 230 of 2022 Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Bhishma Dev Aghariya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Dhansir Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District -

Digitally Balodabajar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate: ... Appellant(s)

2026.02.20

17:31:58 +0530 versus

1. Bhogilal S/o Shri Usatram Aghariya Aged About 65 Years R/o Villat Dayalpur Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2. Jagatram S/o Shri Usatram Aghariya Aged About 55 Years R/o Villat Dayalpur Thana And Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balodabazar-

Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No. : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate

1 & 2 For Respondent No. : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. G.A.

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

20.02.2026

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 28.02.2022 passed by the Learned Third Additional District Judge, Balodabazar in Civil Appeal No. 46-A/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. Bhogilal & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 05-A/2012 (Bhogilal & Anr. Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. 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 possession pleading inter alia that defendant Ajay Kumar sold the suit land bearing Khasra No. 580, area 0.385 hectare, situated at Village Dhansir, to them by registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997 for ₹60,000/- and delivered possession. Their names were mutated in the revenue records, and they constructed a house and other structures over the land. The defendant earlier filed a civil suit challenging the sale deed, which was dismissed on 29.06.2009 in civil suit No.141-A/2007, and the dismissal was affirmed in appeal on 31.03.2012 bearing CA No.101-A/2011. It is alleged that in June 2012, when the plaintiff along with family had gone on a pilgrimage with their family, the defendant unlawfully broke open the lock of the house and forcibly took possession. Despite lodging a police complaint, no action was taken. Therefore, the present suit has been filed seeking recovery of possession of the house from the defendant.

3. The defendants, in their written statement, have denied all the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that defendant Ajay Kumar never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 580, area 0.385 hectare, nor delivered possession thereof. It is contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land and have managed to get their names recorded in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue authorities. The defendant asserts that he has been residing on the said land since the time of his ancestors, having constructed a house thereon, and that he continues to remain in lawful possession with valid documents relating to the property. It is further pleaded that no illegal possession has been taken by him as the land belongs to him, and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge

framed as many as 4 issues and given opportunity to the

parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and

after a full fledged trial rendered a decision suiting the plaintiff

on the ground that that the plaintiffs had duly proved the

execution and validity of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1997 in respect of the suit land and their possession thereunder. It further took note of the earlier litigation wherein the challenge made by defendant Ajay Kumar to the said sale