2025:CGHC:41923-DB Digitally signed by ANKIT A K N UM KI A T R AFR KUMARSINGH SINGH Date:

2025.08.22 15:46:15 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 354 of 2019 Arising out of judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 50-A/2015 by the 8 ^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.]

1. Chandrakala Verma W/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 65 years;

2. Arjun Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 36 years;

3. Dharmaraj Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 37 years All above are R/o Village Bodri, Tehsil Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. Shailendri Verma D/o Satya Lal, aged about 35 years;

5. Sahdev Verma S/o Late Satya Lal, aged about 26 years;

Appellants No.4 & 5 are R/o Mahavir Apartment, Ganga Nagar, Mangla, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus

1. Ravindra Goyal S/o Late Rameshwar, aged about 40 years, R/o Village/Tahsil Bilha District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Bilaspur.

3. Geetanjali Infra and Engineering Services through the partner, S.R. Sahu S/o M. R. Sahu, R/o Geetanjali House, Ameri-Road Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents/Defendants Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board (19.08.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1.

The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the instant first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (for brevity “CPC”) calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 by which the 8^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘trial Court’) dismissed the Plaintiff’s Civil Suit No.50-A/2015 finding no merit.

(Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court)

Brief facts:-

2.

The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:-

(i) The original plaintiff Satyalal Verma, [who died during the pendency of the suit] sold the suit land admeasuring 2.29 acres to defendant No.1 for sale consideration of ₹11,45,000/- vide sale deed dated 26.11.2010 and said to have delivered the peaceful possession thereof to defendant No.1. Thereafter, suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 04.05.2015 for declaration of sale deed dated 26.11.2010 (Ex.P/1) null and void as the same was executed without sale consideration and obtained by fraud on the part of defendant No.1 by promising that he would help him in purchase of another property situated at Parsia, admeasuring 25.89 acre.

(ii) During the pendency of the suit on 13.01.2016, defendant No.1 alienated the part of the suit land admeasuring 0.50 acre and delivered the possession of the same in favour of defendant No.3. Consequently, the plaint was filed and relief was sought to declare the sale deed dated 26.11.2010 null and void as the said sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.1 by playing fraud and also sought the relief that if the plaintiffs are not found in possession of the suit land, defendant No.3 be directed to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs. It appears that the principal averment made in the plaint is that the sale made by the original plaintiff Satyalal Verma in favour of defendant No.1 without sale consideration and, therefore, no title has been passed in favour of defendant No.1.

(iii) Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the allegation stating inter alia that he has purchased the suit land admeasuring 2.29 acres from the landlord/original plaintiff Satyalal Verma by registered sale deed dated 26.11.2010 for a sale consideration amount of ₹11,45,000/- and his name has been executed in the Revenue records. It has been further stated that the market value of the suit land is ₹64,89,000/- and as per the said value of the suit land no proper Court fee has been paid by the plaintiffs and also the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limita