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; re-appreciation of evidence does not satisfy the 'substantial question of law' requirement.

Judgment on Board

07.04.2026

1. S.A. No. 574 of 2016 and S.A. No. 575 of 2016 were earlier clubbed together as they arise between the same parties, though out of two separate suits. Therefore, both the appeals are being decided separately by this judgment.

2. The plaintiff No.1/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Learned 1st Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 118-A/2015 (Suresh Kumar Vs. Smt. Janaki Bai & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2009 (Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt. Janaki & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 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 of title and a decree of permanent injunction pleading inter alia that the suit land was originally owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 05. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 05 had purchased the suit land from its previous owners, namely Mehetaru and Ghasiram, through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1994, and thereafter obtained title and possession over the same. Subsequently, their names were duly mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Sakri in Case No. 70/-6/2003-04. After purchasing the land, the plaintiffs had fenced the suit property with barbed wire and pillars. On 23.04.2005, defendant No. 02 along with certain labourers came to the suit land and attempted to remove the barbed wire fencing. Upon being resisted by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 02 asserted that the suit land had been recorded in his name and threatened to forcibly take possession of the same. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made enquiries from the Patwari and the Tehsil office and came to know that on the basis of an application dated 07.10.2004 filed by defendant No. 02, defendant No. 03 (Tehsildar) had passed an order on the same day deleting the names of the plaintiffs from the revenue records and, on 13.10.2004, the names of defendants No. 01, 02, 03 and defendant No. 06 were recorded in their place. According to the plaintiffs, the said order dated 07.10.2004 was illegal and passed without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs or conducting any proper enquiry. It is further alleged that once the names of the plaintiffs had already been duly mutated in the revenue records, the Naib Tehsildar had no authority to again order mutation. The plaintiffs also alleged collusion between defendants No. 02 and 03 in obtaining the said order. It is further pleaded that during the pendency of the dispute and despite the earlier sale deed being effective in favour of the plaintiffs, a subsequent purchaser, Mohan Singh (defendant No. 6), claimed that he had purchased the land in dispute on the basis of a sale deed dated 26.04.2005 executed in his favour without any consideration. Since the plaintiffs were already the lawful purchasers and in possession of the suit land, the vendors had no authority to execute the said subsequent sale deed. Therefore, the sale deed dated 26.04.2005 is alleged to be null and void. On these grounds, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a declaration that the order dated 07.10.2004 passed by the Naib Tehsildar is illegal and ineffective, and that the plaintiffs