2025:CGHC:61235 NAFR Reserved on : 29.08.2025 Delivered on : 16.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 398 of 2017

1 - Balram Patel (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated 29-04-2025)

1.1 - (A) Gomti Patel W/o Late Balram Patel Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

1.2 - (B) Rashmi Patel W/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

1.3 - (C) Harsh Patel S/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 8 Years Natural Guardian Wali Mother Rashmi Patel, W/o Late Mahendra Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Hardik Patel S/o Late Mahendra Patel Aged About 8 Years Natural Guardian Wali Mother Rashmi Patel, W/o Late Mahendra Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Khamtarai, Rani Durgawati Ward No. 58, Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramkhilawan Suryawanshi, Aged About 39 Years R/o Juna Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................. District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate For Res.1 : Mr. Paras Mani Shrivas, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. A/103/2015, whereby the learned first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2015 rendered by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 176-A/2014. By the said judgment, the trial Court decreed the plaintiff’s suit and directed the defendant to hand over possession of the suit land and further directed to pay damage/mesne profits at the rate of Rs.

2,000/- per annum with effect from 05.12.2011.

2. For convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.

3. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 07.08.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“Whether, finding of the Courts below upholding due execution, attestation and validity of the registered deed of sale dated 08.06.1993 (Ex.P-5) despite upholding the part of registered deed of sale dated 03.04.1958 (Ex.P-16) executed by Krishna Bai and Sriram in favour of Defendant – Balram’s vendor Anandram and thereby awarding the mesne profits, is perverse?

4. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that

4.A) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 05.12.2011 seeking possession and damages mainly contending that the land bearing Khasra No. 216 area 0.28 Ha situated at village – Khamtarai, P.H. No. 17, R.I.C. Bilaspur, Tah and District – Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) is owned by the plaintiff. At the time when the plaintiff and his brother Sabaj Kumar were minors, their father Ram Khilawan Suryawanshi purchased the suit land from its previous owner Mithailal Satyarthi through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1993 and thereby acquired rights and possession over it. The plaintiff’s brother Manoj Kumar died unmarried. As the plaintiff is the sole legal heir, his name was recorded as the owner of the suit land in the revenue records. As such, defendant No. 1 has no right or share over the suit land. Likewise, he had no authority to sell the suit land to Ram Lal, Sehat Ram, or Mangal Prasad. Therefore, the sale deeds dated 06.08.1973 and 03.04.1958 are without authority and void, confer no rights upon defendant No. 1.

4.B) The pl