Digitally signed by 2025:CGHC:60139 SHAYNA KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 321 of 2025

1 - Ashok Kumar Adopted S/o Late Brijbhushan Prasad Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Dhangaon, Police Station And Tehsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) (Now District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

... Applicant versus

1 - Rakesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Verma R/o Village Dhangaon, Police Station And Tehsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) (Now District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.)

2 - Mahendra Kumar Varma S/o Late Shivcharan Verma R/o Village Dhangaon, Police Station And Tehsil Khairagarh District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) (Now District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.)

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) (Now District- Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai (C.G.) (Defendants No. 1 To 3)

... Respondent(s)

:

For Applicant Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

Order on Board

10/12/2025

1. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Khairagarh (C.G.), whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., was dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that The Applicant/Plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 6A/2021 before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), seeking multiple reliefs including declaration that the judgment and compromise decree dated 02.07.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 82A/2006 by the Civil Judge Class-II, Khairagarh in Lok Adalat is binding upon Defendants No. 1 and 2, declaration that mutation entries in favour of Defendant No. 1 are illegal, declaration of his ownership over the Schedule-B lands measuring 15.27 acres, recovery of possession of Schedule-C lands, declaration that the loan of Rs. 17 lakhs taken by Defendant No. 1 by mortgaging Schedule-A land is not binding upon him, perpetual injunction, and ancillary reliefs. The Plaintiff pleaded that the parties are family members; he is the biological son of Late Shivcharan Verma and was adopted by Late Brijbhushan Prasad Verma, who owned 14.718 hectares of land in Village Dhangaon. After the death of Late Brijbhushan, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 1 had been recorded as co-owner in the revenue records. Earlier, a compromise decree regarding seven khasra numbers was passed in Civil Suit No. 82A/2006, but owing to paralysis in late 2006, the Plaintiff had temporarily given certain lands on regha to the Defendants, who thereafter got the entire land mutated in their name and refused to return possession when demanded on 15.05.2020, despite having promised to restore mutation in favour of the Plaintiff. He further alleged that Defendants also mortgaged the suit property for securing a loan. Defendants No. 1 and 2, in their written statement dated 25.11.2022, denied the Plaintiff’s adoption, asserted continuous possession since the lifetime of Late Brijbhushan, claimed that all revenue entries and proceedings recognised their rights, and alleged that the suit is barred by limitation and that the Plaintiff has concocted a false story after decades of inaction. They additionally filed a counter- claim seeking declarations that the 2006 compromise decree is void, that they have perfected title by adverse possession, that the Plaintiff’s alleged adoption is null and void, and that the Plaintiff’s suit is not maintainable for want of proper court fee. The Plaintiff filed his written statement to the counter-claim asserting that the decree of 2006 is binding, that possession given to Defendants was only permissive, that mutation in their favour was fraudulent, that adverse possession does not apply between family members, and tha