A High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are proven to be perverse, absent evidence, or based on a misreading of law.

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the LRs of defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Sarangarh to the Court of District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/2017 {Rampyari (dead) through LRs vs. Badri Prasad & Ors.}, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 118-A/2002 (Mohan Lal Sidar & Anr. vs. Rampyari & Ors.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ LRs of defendant No.1 was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking declaration that the properties described in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ are joint family properties, partition and separate possession of 1/8th share each of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6, permanent injunction protecting possession of plaintiff No.2 over the lands described in Schedule ‘C’ Part-I, and declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 are not binding upon their rights pleading inter alia that plaintiff No.1 Mohanlal is the father of plaintiff No.2 Badriprasad and defendant Nos.1 to 6, and the parties constitute a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law. According to the plaintiffs, the ancestral agricultural land situated at Village Bilaspur, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar, described in Schedule ‘A’, though recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1, was the joint family property of all coparceners. It is further pleaded that out of the income derived from the said ancestral property, additional lands situated at Village Kapisda, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh, described in Schedule ‘B’, were purchased in the names of defendant No.1 Rampyari and plaintiff No.2 Badriprasad in the years 1969 and 1972, and therefore such properties also formed part of the joint family estate. It is averred that about 20-22 years prior to institution of the suit, plaintiff No.1, considering the expansion of the family, made a family arrangement whereby certain portions of the lands at Village Kapisda were allotted for maintenance and cultivation to plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1, while the remaining defendants were given lands situated at Village Bilaspur. However, no partition by metes and bounds was ever effected and the properties continued to remain joint. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendant No.2 had illegally got certain names mutated in the revenue records without consent of the other co-sharers, which led to proceedings before the revenue authorities. It is also pleaded that defendant Nos.1 to 3 started interfering with the peaceful possession of plaintiff No.2 over the lands allotted to him under the family arrangement, resulting in police complaints and proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein possession of plaintiff No.2 was recognized. During pendency of the dispute, defendant No.1 is stated to have executed sale deeds dated 22.07.2004 and 01.02.2005 in favour of subsequent purchasers with respect to portions of the suit property. The plaintiffs contended that such alienations were not binding upon them.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the claim of the plaintiffs and also filed a counter-claim. Their case, in brief, is that an amic