2025:CGHC:60453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 588 of 2017 Abhayram S/o Shri Late Revaram Chandrakar, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village And Post Tarra, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus

1 - Kirathram @ Tirathram S/o Shri Late Revaram Chandrakar, Aged About

69 Years R/o Village And Post Tarra, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

11/12/2025 VED PRAKASH 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil DEWANGAN VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellant assailing the Date: 2026.02.19 judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Court of the 5th Additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Appeal No. 16A/2013, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, District Durg, in Civil Suit No. 135A/2011 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, Kirtharam @ Teertharam. The present appeal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the impugned judgments allegedly give rise to substantial questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The second appeal is admitted on 11.01.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether, the Court belows have erred in considering that the unregistered portion (Ex.D-4) is a manipulated document and therefore, the possession of defendant no.1 over the said property is illegal?

2. Whether, the Court belows have committed error of law in granting the relief of declaration of title of plaintiff on disputed property without there being any prayer of plaintiff for the same and that too without valuation and Court fees for the purpose?”

3. The facts, in brief, as emerging from the record are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff, Kirtharam @ Teertharam, instituted Civil Suit No. 135A/2011 before the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Patan, seeking possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits in respect of the suit agricultural land situated at Village Tarra, Tahsil Patan, District Durg. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property was his self- acquired property, purchased through a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1991, and that the same was never part of the joint Hindu family property. It was pleaded that despite having no right, title or interest therein, the defendant/appellant Abhayram attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and further set up a claim on the basis of an alleged partition deed dated 31.05.1992. The plaintiff specifically denied that the suit land formed part of any family partition and asserted that the alleged partition document did not include the suit property in its original form.

*******The defendant contested the suit contending that the property was joint family property and had fallen to his share in a family partition, and therefore he was in lawful possession. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff had established his title through the registered sale deed and revenue records, and further found that the alleged partition deed relied upon by the defendant did not confer any right over the suit property. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, giving rise to the present second appeal.

4. L