Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or lack evidence, and judicial admissions in cross-examination effectively establish facts, justifying both declaration of title and the consequential relief of recovery of possession.

Judgment on Board

15/04/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the defendants, who are the appellants herein, calling in question the judgment and decree dated 04/04/2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 53-A/2018 (Premendra Kumar v. Nutan & Others) by the learned I Additional District Judge, Sakti (C.G.). By the said impugned judgment and decree, the learned First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 27/04/2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 155-A/2007 (Premendra Kumar v. Nutan & Others) by the learned Civil Judge, Class II, Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the civil suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was partly decreed.”

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

3. (a) The plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of vacant possession in respect of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1141/2 admeasuring 0.17 acre and Khasra No. 1141/4 admeasuring 0.05 acre, along with the house constructed thereon, situated at Village Ungan, Patwari Halka No. 8, Tahsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).

(b) It is the case of the plaintiff, in brief, that the suit property forms part of joint ancestral property recorded in the revenue records in the joint names and possession of the plaintiff and defendants No. 4 and 5, comprising total 16 khasra numbers admeasuring 10.85 acres. It was pleaded that the suit property originally belonged to their predecessor-in-interest, Ramlal, who had acquired the same in a family partition.

(c) According to the plaintiff, the suit property consists of ancestral house and badi, and the same fell to the share of Ramlal in an earlier partition between Ramlal and the predecessor of defendants No. 1 to 3, namely, Meru Prasad. In the said partition, out of Khasra No. 1141/2 (0.33 acre), northern portion admeasuring 0.17 acre fell to the share of Ramlal, whereas southern portion admeasuring 0.16 acre (Khasra No. 1141/3) fell to the share of Meru Prasad. It is further pleaded that Meru Prasad subsequently sold his share to one Jagdish, thereby extinguishing any right of defendants No. 1 to 3 over the suit property.

(d) It is further the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Ramlal, the plaintiff was a minor aged about 10 years. On the occasion of the last rites of Ramlal, defendants No. 1 to 3 requested the plaintiff to permit them to reside temporarily in a portion of the suit house. On the persuasion of villagers, the plaintiff allowed them to occupy a portion of the house (shown in red colour in the map) on the condition that they would vacate the same as and when required.

(e) It was pleaded that despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff from time to time, defendants No. 1 to 3 failed to vacate the suit property and continued in unauthorized possession. It was further alleged that on 15.05.2006 and again on 26.05.2006, defendants No. 1 to 3 attempted to dismantle portions of the house and remove building materials, which led to intervention by the plaintiff and lodging of police reports.

(f) The plaintiff pleaded that he along with defendants No. 4 and 5 are the exclusive title holders and in possession of the suit property, whereas defendants No. 1 to 3 have no right, title or interest therein and their possession is illegal. Hence, the Civil suit was filed seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself and other witness