In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are shown to be perverse, illegal, or based on a total misreading of evidence, as mere disagreement with evidence appreciation does not constitute a substantial question of law.

C A V Judgment

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

1. Since both the appeals assail the common judgment and decree and involve interconnected issues, they were heard and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Second Appeal bearing SA No. 493 of 2018 has been filed by the defendant Nos. 6 to 8 and the Second Appeal bearing SA No. 461 of 2018 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the common impugned judgment and decree dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 21-A/2018 (Niranjan Pandey vs. Manorama Pandey & Ors.), Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2018 (Santosh Dubey & Ors. vs. Manorama Pandey & Ors.), whereby the civil appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendants No.6 to 8 were dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 202-A/2008 (Niranjan Pandey vs. Manorama Pandey & Ors.), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff and the counter-claim filed by the defendant No.5 was dismissed and the counter-claim filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 was allowed. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the plaintiff is the son of defendant No.1 and brother of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and that the entire suit land situated at Village Sivni and Village Kurda is recorded in the joint names of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the revenue records as joint holders of ancestral property. It is further admitted that out of the suit land, the plaintiff has sold various portions by registered sale deeds in January, 2006 in favour of defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and similarly, defendant No. 3 has also sold 0.91 acres of land from Khasra No. 601/2 in favour of defendant No.5 by registered sale deed dated 13.06.2007.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, pleading inter alia that the suit land is recorded in the joint names of the plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, though a partition of the family properties had already been effected in the year 2000 by his father, Bhagwat Prasad Pandey. It was pleaded that, pursuant to the said partition, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were allotted separate land purchased in their names from one Ramlal vide registered sale deed dated 02.07.2001, along with cash consideration, and thus were not given any share in the joint family land. The remaining land was retained partly by the parents namely; Bhagwat Prasad and Manorama (Defendant No.1), and the balance was allotted to the plaintiff, upon which the parties are in possession of their respective shares. It was further pleaded that despite having knowledge of the said partition, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 initiated revenue proceedings before the Tahsildar, Champa, wherein by order dated 10.04.2006, the matter was kept in abeyance directing the parties to seek adjudication of title from the competent Civil Court. It was also contended that during the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 3 executed a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2007 in respect of part of the suit land, which is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and is not binding on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has sought declaration of his title over the suit land.

5.

(a) Per contra, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, in their written statement-cum-counter claim, denied the averments made in the plaint regarding the alleged partition and conte