2026:CGHC:9206 NAFR RAHUL JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.02.23

14:37:46 +0530 Judgment reserved on: 20/02/2026 Judgment delivered on: 23/02/2026 SA No. 279 of 2020 Dhaneshwar Vaishnav S/o Late Devadas Vaishnav, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Godhi (S), Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Smt. Geeta Bai Wd/o Ramlakhan @ Lakhanlal Vaishnav, Aged About 50 Years Guru Nanak Ward, Behind Durga Rice Mill, Bhatapara, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

2 - Uttara Bai D/o Ramlakhan @ Lakhanlal Vaishnav, Aged About 27 Years W/o Ashok Vaishnav, S/o Kunjbihari Vaishnav, R/o Village Kundru, P.O.

Baikunth, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Asha Nirmalkar, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J

C A V Judgment

1. By the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/defendant challenges the impugned judgment and decree dated 06/02/2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2015 (Dhaneshwar Vaishnav v. Smt. Geeta Bai & Others), arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10/07/2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 23A/2014 (Smt. Geeta Bai & Others v. Dhaneshwar Vaishnav), whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. (a) The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a civil suit seeking declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land situated at Village Godhi (S), Patwari Halka No. 13/30, R.I.M. Nipania, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur, bearing Khasra Nos. 26, 780, 943 etc., total area 1.301 hectares (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). The plaintiffs further sought a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 06.06.1990 executed in favour of Defendant No. 1 is null and void and not binding upon them.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the husband of Plaintiff No. 1, Late Lakhanlal Vaishnav, and the father of Defendant No. 1, Devaram Vaishnav, were real brothers. The suit land is pleaded to be the ancestral property of Late Lakhanlal Vaishnav. It is alleged that although Lakhanlal Vaishnav had expired on 02.07.1985, Devaram Vaishnav, with an intention to grab the suit land, fraudulently got a sale deed dated 06.06.1990 registered in favour of Defendant No. 1 by setting up an impersonator in place of the deceased Lakhanlal Vaishnav.

(c) According to the plaintiffs, the said sale deed is void ab initio as it was executed after the death of Lakhanlal Vaishnav and is the result of fraud and impersonation. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they first acquired knowledge of the said sale deed on 04.08.2009 when Plaintiff No.1 inspected the records in the office of the Sub-Registrar and thereafter obtained certified copies of the relevant documents. Hence, the present suit was filed seeking declaration of their 1/2 share in the suit land, partition by metes and bounds, delivery of possession, and permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1.

(d) Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It has been contended that the sale deed dated 06.06.1990 was lawfully executed and registered and that the defendant is the sole owner and title holder of the suit land on the basis of the said registered sale deed. The defendant has further pleaded tha