2025:CGHC:48527 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 99 of 2018 SYED ROSHAN

1. Durga Singh S/o Bhangi Singh Aged About 74 Years R/o ZAMIR ALI Village Pipartarai, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Digitally (Plaintiff), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh signed by SYED ... Appellant/plaintiff ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI versus

1. Bharat Singh S/o Anup Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Pipartarai, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents/Defendants For Appellant : Mr. Manoj V Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : None For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Panel Lawyer.

SB:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board

22.9.2025

1. Heard on admission.

2. Plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity “CPC”) against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.46A/2017 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.27-A/2012 whereby learned Civil Judge Class-II Kota, District Bilaspur (CG) has non-suited plaintiff / appellant herein.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiff/appellant herein filed a civil suit against the defendants/respondents herein seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No.825/3 area 0.56 acre situate in village Pipartarai, District Bilaspur, which will be referred hereinafter as ‘the suit property’. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff and defendant belong to same family; the suit land is their ancestral property which had fallen in the share of father of plaintiff at the time of family partition and since then he is in peaceful continuous possession of the same. After partition, due to oversight, suit land came to be recorded in the name of father of defendant No.1 and on coming to know about this fact, amendment deed dated 19.4.1985 on a stamp paper of Rs.7/- was executed by father of defendant No.1 and based on which, name of plaintiff was mutated in land records by the Mutation Officer. However, when plaintiff visited Halka Patwari to get copy of his account, he came to know that suit land is still continuing in the name of defendant No.1 and therefore, he submitted an application for recording the suit land in the name of plaintiff and based on which record was corrected in the name of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Kota to illegally get possession of suit land, which came to be rejected vide order dated 24.8.2011 on the ground that suit land has already been transferred in the name of plaintiff, which has not been challenged by defendant No.1. Appeal preferred against order dated 24.8.2011 was allowed by learned Sub Divisional Officer (R) Kota on the ground that though order of mutation in favour of plaintiff was passed on 12.5.1985, but on the date of making application by defendant for grant of possession, it was recorded in name of defendant; land record has been corrected in the name of plaintiff without there being any order of the Court. After passing of order by SDO, defendant is trying to take possession of suit land and also giving threats to plaintiff due to which he and his family members are under fear.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the suit land was received by his father in a family partition in the year 1986 and since then they are in possession and occupation of the same. Plaintiff fraudulently obtained order dated 22.4.1985 on the basis of durustinama executed on stamp paper of Rs.7/- but did not get his name mutated in land records because mutation cannot be done based on non-judicial stamp of Rs.7/-. Plaintiff with intent to grab the land of share of defendant No.1. On application