2026:CGHC:12013 Digitally signed by NAFR JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMADate:

2026.03.17 10:23:07 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 111 of 2022 Nanku Ram Sahu S/o Late Sumer Sahu Aged About 90 Years R/o Village - Bori, Tahsil - Bori, District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Vidhya Bhusan Soni, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J Judgment on Board

13.03.2026

1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the CPC’), the appellant/plaintiff is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned VIth Additional District Judge, Durg, C.G. in Regular Civil Appeal No.57/2022 (State of C.G. Vs. Nanku Ram Sahu), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned XI Civil Judge, Class- II in Civil Suit No. 94A/2015 dated 16/03/2022 (Nanku Ram Vs. State of C.G.) has been set-aside and the matter has been remanded for retrial and fresh adjudication as per points mentioned in para 22 of the judgment rendered by the appellate court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiff preferred the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that the plaintiff’s father, Late Sumer Sahu, was in possession of certain agricultural lands situated at Village Bori, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg, bearing old Khasra Nos. 1929, 1950 and 2028, which were later renumbered as Khasra Nos. 527 and 559. Subsequently, parts of the said lands were further renumbered as Khasra Nos. 796, 797 and 802. The plaintiff submits that he remained in possession of the said lands along with his father and, after the death of his father, has continued to cultivate the same. It is further pleaded that though the authorities had earlier initiated encroachment proceedings against the plaintiff and imposed monetary penalties, the plaintiff was never dispossessed from the suit land. According to the plaintiff, he has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the suit land for more than 50 years and, therefore, has perfected his title over the same by way of adverse possession. It is further stated that despite service of legal notice dated 18.06.2014 upon the defendant, no action was taken to record the land in the plaintiff’s name, hence the present suit has been filed.

4. The defendant/State has not filed any written statement before the trial Court and it was proceeded ex parte.

5. The Trial Court, after framing the issues on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff Nanku Ram proved that he had been in continuous possession and cultivation of the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 796, 797 and 802 for more than 50 years. The plaintiff examined himself and another witness, Shivnath Deshmukh, who supported the plaintiff’s claim of long and continuous possession over the suit land. The documents produced by the plaintiff, including revenue records, renumbering slips, maps and khasra panchshalas of different years, also indicated the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The Court further noted that the defendant did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte, and therefore the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unrebutted. On the basis of the material on record, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had established continuous and hostile possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period and had perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Consequently, the suit was decreed and the plaintiff was declared owner of the suit land, and the defendant was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant/State preferred Civil Appeal b