Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Nand Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Dev Prakash Verma – Respondent
SA No. 217 of 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.C. Verma, Manharan Lal Sahu
For the Respondents: Lekhram Dhruw

A suit for declaration of title simpliciter is not maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act if the plaintiff omits to seek available consequential relief of possession. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not amenable to interference in second appeal absent perversity or legal error.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent findings of fact - Scope of interference - Held, concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. (Paras 16, 17, 20)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration of title simpliciter - Maintainability - Held, where plaintiffs are in a position to seek further consequential relief such as possession but omit to do so, a mere suit for declaration of title is not maintainable. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(C) Evidence - Family arrangement - Admissibility - Document styled as family arrangement constitutes a valid record of past partition and is admissible in evidence once proven through admissions of parties. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title over ancestral property, challenging a mutation order passed in favor of the primary defendant and subsequent sale deeds executed by him. They contended the property remained joint and the mutation was obtained through forged consent. Defendant No. 1 argued that a family partition had occurred in 1988, and the property was exclusively allotted to him, leading to the impugned mutation. Courts below concurrently held the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for failure to seek possession and that the plaintiffs were estopped by their own conduct and family partition records.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below were based on correct appreciation of evidence and did not involve any substantial question of law. The suit was correctly dismissed for being time-barred, failing to seek consequential possession, and for the plaintiffs' lack of evidence to challenge the established family partition.

Issues: Whether concurrent findings of fact are subject to interference in second appeal; and whether a suit for declaration of title is maintainable without seeking the relief of possession where the plaintiff is not in actual possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act by omitting to seek consequential relief when possible renders the suit for declaration simpliciter non-maintainable. Additionally, in a second appeal under Section 100, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact lacking perversity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background and procedural history of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding admissibility of evidence and maintainability of the suit. (Para 7)
3. court's findings on the validity of family arrangements and the requirements of section 34 of the specific relief act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. scope of interference by high court in second appeal under section 100 cpc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. final conclusion regarding the lack of substantial question of law and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

Judgment on Board

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 03-A/2016 (Nandkishore vs. Devprakash Verma & Ors.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2016 passed by the learned 1st Civil Judge, Class-I, Balodabazar (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 152-A/2001 (Nandkishore vs. Devprakash Verma & Ors.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs and the counter appeal filed by the defendant No.1- Devprakash Verma, were dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking declaration of title over the house property situated at Balodabazar, Nazul Sheet No. 14A, Plot No. 8/2 admeasuring 4800 sq. ft., along with a declaration that the order dated 14.02.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Balodabazar in Revenue Case No. 21A/6 (1993–94), as well as the subsequent sale deeds dated 21.03.2001 and 27.03.2001 executed in favour of defendant No. 08- Satish Kumar in respect of portions of the suit property admeasuring 950 sq. ft. and 825 sq. ft., are not binding upon them, pleading inter alia that the suit house originally stood recorded in the name of late Brijlal Verma and upon his death, all his legal heirs (including the plaintiffs and defendants) jointly inherited the property; however, taking undue advantage of the plaintiffs’ absence, defendant No. 01 Devprakash, by allegedly obtaining a forged consent, got the property mutated exclusively in his name vide order dated 14.02.1994 without affording opportunity of hearing to the other co-heirs, and thereafter during pendency of proceedings, illegally alienated parts of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 08, whereof the plaintiffs gained knowledge only upon obtaining certified copies on 30.03.2000, necessitating the filing of the suit.

3. Per contra, defendant No. 1, Devprakash, in his written statement, has opposed the suit contending that after the death of Brijlal in 1988, a family partition took place between the parties, pursuant to which the suit house fell exclusively to his share under a family arrangement, and on the basis of consent given by all other legal heirs, a lawful mutation order dated 14.02.1994 was passed in his favour after due publication. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs were well aware of the said mutation since inception but never challenged it, and therefore the suit is barred by limitation as well as acquiescence. It is also averred that under the family arrangement, the suit property at Balodabazar came to Defendant No. 1, whereas a property at New Delhi was allotted to Plaintiff No. 1. The defendant claims to be in continuous possession of the suit house and submits that, due to financial liabilities, he sold portions of the property to Defendant No. 8, in the years 1994–95 and handed over possession. Objections regarding improper valuation, insufficiency of court fee, lack of jurisdiction, and non-joinder of necessary parties have also been raised, along with the plea that the plain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURBibhu Datta Guru, JNand Kishore – AppellantVersusDev Prakash Verma – RespondentSA No. 217 of 2020

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Nand Kishore – Appellant
Versus
Dev Prakash Verma – Respondent
SA No. 217 of 2020