Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Dinesh Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
Chulendra Verma – Respondent
SA No. 10 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P. K. Patel
For the Respondents: Lekhram Dhruw
A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law exists; concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or legally unsustainable.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope of Interference - Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court cannot be interfered with under Section 100 of the CPC unless they are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law. (Para 8, 11)
(B) Substantial Question of Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Questions that essentially relate to the re-appreciation of evidence or challenge concurrent findings of fact do not constitute a 'substantial question of law' required for the admission of a second appeal. (Para 10, 13)
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the plaintiff's failure to establish title and possession raised a substantial question of law warranting interference in a second appeal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction based on ancestral claims and revenue entries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant's contention regarding misappreciation of evidence and disregard for long-term possession. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish title or possession via preponderance of probability. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. the limited scope of section 100 cpc and the requirement of a substantial question of law to override concurrent findings. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. dismissal of the second appeal in limine due to lack of substantial legal questions. (Para 15) |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board
23/03/2026
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/
2
plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2015 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. H-08- A/2015 (Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. Chulendra Verma & Anr.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Balodabazar (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 99-A/2013 (Dinesh Kumar Verma vs. Chulendra Verma & Anr.), whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial
Court.
2. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants seeking
declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of Khasra No. 609/1 admeasuring 0.725 hectares, situated in Village Guma, P.H. No.1, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), pleading inter alia that the suit land originally formed part of approximately 400 acres of agricultural land belonging to the predecessor of defendant No.1, late Mansharam Verma. After his death, the property was recorded jointly in the names of his four sons, including Shobharam Verma, the plaintiff’s ancestor. Subsequently, the property was divided amongst Mansharam Verma’s sons and later amongst their descendants, whereby the suit land came into the possession of the plaintiff’s father and ultimately the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that due to a clerical
3
error, the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Late Holsai, the son of Mansharam, and after his death, in the name of Chulendra, defendant No.1. The plaintiff and his predecessors have been in peaceful possession of the suit land for over 50 years, yet the revenue records erroneously show defendant No.1’s name, causing the plaintiff considerable hardship. The plaintiff also pleads that pursuant to a panchayat decision dated 04.08.2002, the parties had agreed to correct the revenue records according to actual possession, but defendant No.1 failed to comply and, in May 2013, caused demarcation of the land in the plaintiff’s absence, subsequently claiming ownership over the disputed land. Hence, the plaintiff seeks declaration of ownership, recognition of possession, and consequential relief for appropriate
compensation from defendant No.1.
3. Per contra, defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the
plaint averments and pleaded that he is the recorded owner and in possession of the suit land as per the revenue records, and the plaintiff was well aware of the same from the very beginning. It is further pleaded that despite such knowledge, the plaintiff has deliberately instituted the suit on false and baseless grounds, and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.2, however, remained ex parte and did not file any written statement
nor contested the proceedings.
4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as
4
well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff has not established his claim over the suit la
