2025:CGHC:55744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 106 of 2016

1 - Hirmen D/o Amar Sai Aged About 31 Years W/o Budhram, R/o Village Basajhal, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ...........Plaintiff ... Appellant versus

1 – Parmanand S/o Munshi Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Basajhal, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Surguja District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

3 - Rudraram S/o Jaichand, Aged About 46 Years, Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Basajhal, Tehsil Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ...........Defendants ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

14-11-2025

1. The present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-10-2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Ambikapur District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.38A/2011 whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 30-04-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class II Sitapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No.90A/2007 MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.12.11

2. For the sake of convenience the status shown in the civil suit of the parties are being taken in this appeal also.

3. Initially plaintiffs Amar Sai and Hirmen had filed a civil suit for declaration of their title and for deletion of name of defendant No.1 over the suit property and mutation of his name. During pendency of the suit plaintiff No.1 Amar Sai has died and his name has been deleted.

4. The suit of the plaintiff was that they governed by Hindu law. The suit land shown in the para 1 of the plaint total area 4.61 acre was owned by grand- father of the plaintiff, namely, Baiga S/o Marchui. The father of defendant No.1 Munshiram was patel of village Bansajhal and presently he is patel of the village. Rin Pustika of the suit land was given to defendant No.1 to pay the land revenue, but the same has not been returned back. Her grand-father Baiga has never alienated any part of the suit land to anyone, but the defendants have illegally got mutated their names in the revenue records of the suit land. The plaintiff came to know about the fact of mutation on 14-05-

2002 and then she filed the suit for declaration of her title.

5. The defendants No.1 and 3 have contested the suit and filed their written statement. They pleaded in the written statement that the father of defendant No.1 namely, Munshiram was in possession of the suit land since 1944 and he got its nazrana. The name of Munshiram was recorded in the Adhikar Abhilekh and after his death defendant No.1 and 3 are in possession of the same. The plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit land. In the year 1954 name of Munshiram was recorded in the revenue records and after his death names of defendants No.1 and 3 have been mutated and thus, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed.

6. After considering the pleadings of the respective parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues for its consideration:-

“1- D;k oknhx.k oknHkwfe ds ,dek= LoRokf/kdkjh ,oa vkf/kiR;/kkjh gSa\

2- D;k oknhx.k oknHkwfe ds jktLo vfHkys[kksa es ls izfr0 dz0 1 dk uke foyksfir dj viuk uke vafdr djoku s ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ 3- D;k oknhx.k dk okn vof/k esa gS\

4- D;k ;g okn bl U;k;ky; ds Jo.k {ks=kf/kdkj esa g\S

5- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\”

7. To prove its case the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1, Bhonduram (PW-2), Dhursai (PW-3) and Manohar (PW-4) and she relied upon the documents Ex.-P/1 to P/4 which are the revenue documents.

8. The defendants have examined DW-1 Parmanand, DW-2 Sukhna and produced documents Ex.-D/1 to D/5 which are the