In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are proved to be perverse, as a co-sharer cannot validly alienate ancestral property in excess of their share without the consent of other co-owners.

Judgment on Board

1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and decree, they are considered and decided by this common judgment.

2. S.A. No. 297 of 2022 preferred by the Defendant No.1 Smt. Guddi Bai/ appellant whereas S.A. No. 343 of 2022 preferred by the subsequent purchasers, namely Shivshankar Sahu/ appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the common judgment & decree dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur Dist. Surguja C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 34A/2021 (Smt. Guddi Bai Vs. Ghasnin Bai & Ors.) and Civil Appeal No. 39A/2021 (Shivshankar Sahu & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ghasnin Bai and Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 182A/2015 (Ghasnin Bai & Anr. Vs. Smt. Guddi Bai & Anr.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs preferred the suit for declaration of title over Khasra No. 352 area 0.121 hect. described in Appendix-A and for declaration of sale deed dated 12.01.2015 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 as null, void and unlawful pleading inter alia that they were having ancestral property bearing khasra No.352/1 area of 0.272 hectares situated at Village Sundarpur, Ambikapur, Police Station and Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). During the settlement proceedings, the said land was recorded in the name of Karuha Panika, son of Sampat Das Panika. After the death of the said recorded holder, the land came to be recorded in the name of his legal heir i.e. Basant Panika, who was the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and the father of Plaintiff No.2. Thus, the said property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. Basant Panika died on 31.07.2015 at Village Sundarpur, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). It is further pleaded that the husband of Defendant No.1, namely Mannudas, is a clever and fraudulent person who, by misleading Basant Panika, got a sale deed executed on 12.01.2015, in respect of land bearing khasra No.352/1 area of 0.121 hectares (henceforth ‘the suit land’) in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land, showing a sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-. However, in reality no sale consideration was ever paid either to the plaintiffs or to Basant Panika. The said sale deed was executed only as a paper transaction without any consideration and is therefore void from the very beginning. It is further stated that the suit land was not the self-acquired property of Basant Panika but was ancestral property; therefore, Basant Panika had no right to alienate the same. The Defendant No.1, without following the proper legal procedure for mutation, got her name recorded in the revenue records through the Patwari on the basis of the said illegal and void sale deed. The plaintiffs came to know about the said sale deed and the illegal entry in the revenue records only in July 2015 after the death of Basant Panika, when they approached the Patwari for recording the death entry. Upon obtaining copies of the revenue documents in September 2015, the plaintiffs came to know for the first time that Defendant No.1 had fraudulently got the sale deed dated 12.01.2015 registered and had also clandestinely got her name mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the plaint