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 involve a substantial question of law.

(Cause title taken from CIS)

Judgment on Board

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/defendant No. 1 challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Learned First Additional District Judge, Bastar Distt- Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/2014 (Smt. Gurubai vs. Smt. Mangli Bai & Others arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2013 passed by the learned Third Civil Judge, Class- I, Bastar District Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2012 (Smt. Mangla Bai vs. Gurubai & Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The Civil suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking a decree for possession to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit lands situated at Village Bhursundi, Patwari Halka No. 32, R.N.M. Bastar, bearing Khasra Nos. 23, 52, 122, 126, 171, 211, 212, 27 and 87, admeasuring respectively 0.31, 4.76, 0.41, 1.01, 0.19, 0.79, 0.89, 0.380 and 0.450 hectares, total Khasra Nos. 9, total area 9.190 hectares. The plaintiff has also sought a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Jalandhar and, on such basis, is entitled to receive all death-cum-retiral dues including pension, and compassionate appointment, on account of death of her husband namely Jalandhar, who died in harness while rendering the services in the Education Department.

3.

(a) The brief facts are that the plaintiff, Mangli Bai, was married to Late Jalandhar, son of Sahdev Muriya, around the year 1987–88. Defendant No. 2 is stated to be the brother of Late Jalandhar, and Defendant No. 3 is the son of Cherga, who is the brother of Sahdev (father of Jalandhar). The plaintiff submits that she resided in a joint family and, after a few years of marriage, gave birth to Defendant No. 4, namely Guddi. The suit properties are stated to be ancestral properties. Additionally, it is averred that Late Jalandhar had purchased certain lands out of his self-acquired income, namely Khasra No. 124 admeasuring 0.270 hectares and Khasra No. 249/100 admeasuring 0.610 hectares, total area 0.88 hectares, which have also been included in the suit property. It is further stated that Late Jalandhar was employed as a peon in a Government School and was transferred from Bakawand to Chapka, where he died on 20th February 2006 due to paralysis.

(b) The plaintiff further submits that during the lifetime of Late Jalandahr, she was subjected to harassment and physical assault by him due to which she returned to her parental home at Village Karmari, where she has been residing and educating her daughter Guddi. It is further alleged that Late Jalandhar came into contact with Defendant No. 1 and kept her as his concubine at Village Chapka. After the death of Late Jalandhar, Defendant No. 1, namely Guruvari Bai, without informing Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the plaintiff, got the suit lands mutated in her name and obtained compassionate appointment as well as pension after the death of Jalandhar.

(c) The plaintiff contends that Defendant No. 1 has falsely projected herself as the wife of Late Jalandhar. The plaintiff has also referred to Revenue Case No. 24/3-6/08-09, wherein she sought mutation of her name along with Defendant No. 4, and states that the Tehsildar recorded the name of Defendant No. 4. Further reference is made to Revenue Case No. 197/B 121/08-09, order dated 20.05.2009, wherein Defendant No. 1 allegedly obtained a legal heir certificate on false grounds and received death-cum-retiral dues, pension, and compassionate appointment on account of death of Jalandhar.

4.

(i) The Defendant No. 1 filed her written statement and denied that the plaintiff is the wife of Late Jalandhar or that any m