In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law, and the initial burden of proving the existence of a joint family nucleus remains with the claimant.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

17.04.2026

1. Perusal of the earlier order sheets reveals that the appeal was referred to the Mediation Centre, however, the mediation failed on account of non-participation of the parties. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard on admission.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants, who are the husband and wife, have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Bhanupratapur, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2016 (Ramnarayan & Anr. Vs. Vishal Ram & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2013 (Ramnarayan & Anr. Vs. Vishal Ram & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/ appellants. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted a Civil suit seeking declaration, partition, possession, and other consequential reliefs in respect of ancestral and joint family properties pleading inter alia that one Sukhram, father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, was the original owner of agricultural lands situated at Village Ghodda, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker. Sukhram had two wives. From his first wife Bhagwati, a daughter namely Ghurai Bai was born, and from his second wife Leelabai, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 were born. The family was governed by Hindu Law and Mitakshara School, and all properties were treated as joint Hindu family properties. It is pleaded that during his lifetime, Sukhram executed a registered gift deed dated 05.12.1975 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 in respect of certain ancestral lands, and after his death on 07.02.1976, the remaining lands were mutated jointly in the names of plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1, Leelabai, and Ghurai Bai. Thereafter, some portion was given to Ghurai Bai and the remaining lands continued jointly between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs further averred that certain additional lands at Village Jampara were purchased from the income of the joint family, though the sale deed was executed in the name of defendant No.1, being the elder brother and karta of the family. Likewise, an ancestral house situated at Village Ghodda was also claimed to be joint family property. It is further stated that an oral/consensual partition took place between plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 on 22.02.2001. However, disputes subsequently arose regarding unequal and improper partition made by the revenue authorities in proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner, and Board of Revenue. According to the plaintiffs, fertile lands and valuable properties such as the ancestral house and Jampara lands were allotted entirely to defendant No.1, while the plaintiffs were given barren and uncultivable lands. The plaintiffs contend that despite various revenue proceedings and remand orders, proper equal partition by metes and bounds was not effected. Therefore, the present suit has been filed seeking:

1. Equal half share partition of the properties mentioned in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’;

2. Declaration of half ownership in the Schedule ‘C’ property at Village Jampara as joint family property;

3. Half share in the ancestral house described