Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9550

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026:CGHC:15729

SA No. 574 of 2016

Suresh Kumar S/o Late Shankar Lal, Aged About 43 Years R/o Priyadarshini Nagar, At Present Village Lailunga Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Smt. Janaki Bai W/o Late Mahetaru, R/o Village- Ameri, Tahsil- Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. B.S.Markam, Nayab Tahsildar, Sakari, Tahsil- Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Mohan Singh S/o Ram Singh, R/o Village- Deepika, Tah. Deepika, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh

5. Neelu D/o Late Shankarlal, W/o Ghanaram Solanki, R/o Raisigh Nagar, Tahsil Raisingh Nagar, Distt. Shreeganga Nagar, Rajasthan ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate

For Respondent No. 3/ State Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L.

For Respondent No. 4 Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan & Mr. Aishwarya Pandey, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manoj Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Lekhram Dhruv, Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Aishwarya Pandey

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 cannot re-appreciate evidence to resolve issues of fact.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Section 165(6) - Transfer of tribal land - Non-tribal purchaser failing to obtain mandatory Collector permission - Transaction void - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference under Section 100 CPC - Limited to substantial questions of law - Perversity in findings not demonstrated - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land purchased via a registered sale deed. The respondents contended the sale was fraudulent, violated tribal land protection laws (as they belonged to the Gond community), and that possession remained with them. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the appellant failed to prove valid title, lacked mandatory permission for purchasing tribal land, and failed to establish possession.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal absent perversity. The appellant failed to show any substantial question of law or establish that the findings were contrary to law or based on no evidence.

Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for declaration of title and injunction, and whether the findings regarding the validity of the sale deed involve substantial questions of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale deed transferring land from a member of a Scheduled Tribe to a non-tribal without mandatory Collector permission under Section 165(6) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code is void, and appellate courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact lacking perversity.

Result: Second Appeal dismissed.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

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/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. 119-A/2015 (Suresh Kumar Vs. Smt. Janaki Bai & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 198-A/2009 (Suresh Kumar Vs. Smt. Janaki & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted a Civil suit seeking declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction pleading inter alia that they are the owners and possessors of the suit land bearing Khasra No.480/1-ख admeasuring 0.55 acres. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had purchased the said land from its previous owners, Mahetaru and Ghasiram (deceased defendant No. 2), through a registered sale deed dated 08.06.1994, and thereafter obtained title and possession over the same. On the basis of the said transaction, the plaintiffs’ names were duly mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Court of the Naib Tehsildar, Sakri in Case No. 68/3-6/2003-04. It was further averred that after purchasing the land, the plaintiffs fenced the suit property with barbed wire and pillars. On 23.04.2005, defendant No.2 allegedly came to the suit land along with labourers and attempted to remove the barbed wire fencing claiming that the land had been recorded in his name and that he would take forcible possession thereof. Upon making inquiries from the revenue authorities, the plaintiffs came to know that on the basis of an application dated 07.10.2004 submitted by defendant No.2, the Naib Tehsildar had passed an order on the same day directing deletion of the plaintiffs’ names from the revenue records and restoring the names of defendants. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said order dated 07.10.2004 was passed illegally, without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs or conducting any proper inquiry, and therefore the same is void and without legal effect. It was further alleged that the said order was passed in collusion between defendant No.2 and the concerned revenue authority. The plaintiffs also challenged the subsequent sale deed dated 26.04.2005 executed in favour of defendant Mohan Singh, contending that since the earlier sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was valid and effective and they were already in possession of the land, the subsequent transfer was illegal and liable to be declared null and void. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree declaring them to be the owners and possessors of the suit land, declaring the order dated 07.10.2004 passed by the Naib Tehsildar as illegal and void, declaring the sale deed dated 26.04.2005 executed in favour of defendant Mohan Singh as null and void, and for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit property.

4. Defendant No.5, Mohan Singh, in his written statement denied the entire claim of the plaintiffs and contended that the suit land, along with other adjoining lands bearing Khasra Nos. 479 and 480 admeasuring about 1.70 acres, originally belonged to defendants No.1 and 2 and their names were duly recorded in the revenue records. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of a forged and fabricated sale deed and that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors ever obtained possession of the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

For Appellant(s)	Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3/ State	Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L.
For Respondent No. 4	Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan & Mr. Aishwarya Pandey, Advocate

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9550

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 cannot re-appreciate evidence to resolve issues of fact.

Cases Referred (1)