Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless perverse, and a mere agreement to sell does not establish ownership or adverse possession if the possession was originally permissive.

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

Judgment on Board

02/03/2026

1. Since all the appeals arising out of common judgment and decree, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.

2. The present Appeals have been filed by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the common impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2017 (plaintiff), civil appeal No.6-A/2017 (Defendant No.1), civil appeal No.12-A/2017 (Defendant No.2) and civil appeal No.16-A/2017 (Defendant No.4), whereby the civil appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed in part and the other three civil appeals filed by the defendants No.1, 2 & 4 separately were dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Durg (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2012 (Praveenchand Surana & Ors. vs. Smt. Dhanwantin Bai & Ors.), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the counter-claim filed by the defendants was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. It is noteworthy to mention here that being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2017 on the ground that the decree was not granted in terms of the reliefs claimed in the plaint and the same was not executable. On the other hand, the defendants No.1, 2 & 4 also challenged the said judgment and decree by filing separate Civil Appeals bearing Nos. 06-A/2017, 12-A/2017 and 16-A/2017, contending inter alia that their counter-claim based on adverse possession had wrongly been rejected by the Trial Court and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs was contrary to law and evidence on record.

4. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages, pleading inter alia that the house known as ‘Surana Bhawan’ situated at Jawahar Chowk, Durg, originally belonged to late Premchand Surana as joint Hindu family property and was partitioned vide sale deed dated 21.07.1966 (registered on 03.09.1966), pursuant to which the plaintiffs became owners and in possession thereof. It was pleaded that one shop situated on the eastern side, shown in the plaint map by letters A, B, C, D (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit shop’), was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, but rent from 01.07.1990 to 31.03.1995 amounting to Rs.5,600/- remained unpaid despite notice dated 06.03.1995, rendering the defendant liable for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that they have never executed any agreement to sell dated 10.05.1972 in favour of late Dwarka Prasad Soni and further alleged acts of nuisance and unlawful interference in August 1994, attracting Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. It was also pleaded that the defendant, being a tenant, is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from challenging the plaintiffs’ title and that neither adverse possession nor la