In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are proved to be perverse, contrary to pleadings, or based on no evidence.

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Judgment on Board

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiffs/appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2025 passed by the learned II Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Kawardha (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 02-A/2024 (Shivkumar & Others v. Tirathram & Others). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26/12/2023 passed in Civil Suit No. 12/A/2017 {Vishbnath Gupta (since died) through LRs Shiv Kumar & Others v. Tirathram & Another} by the Civil Judge Class-II, Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs had been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. (a) The original plaintiff, namely Vishbanath Gupta, instituted a civil suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 302/19 K, admeasuring total area 0.87 acres, situated at Village Pandatarai, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.), more particularly in respect of a portion admeasuring about 0.05 acres, as described in Schedule ‘A’ appended with the plaint. During pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff expired and, thereafter, the present appellants were brought on record and substituted as his legal representatives in accordance with law before the Trial Court.

(b) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land is his ancestral agricultural property, which stands recorded in his name in the revenue records. According to the plaintiffs, the said land was allotted to them in an oral family partition between his father and brother, and since thereafter, they have been in continuous possession thereof. It is further pleaded that originally the total holding was larger in extent, out of which 0.13 acres was acquired by the State Government in the year 2014 for construction of Pandatarai–Madmada road, and compensation for the same was duly paid to the plaintiff. After such acquisition, the plaintiffs asserts that they are left with 0.87 acres of land, which continues to remain under their ownership and possession.

(c) The plaintiffs further alleges that the disputed portion of about 0.05 acres, forming part of Schedule ‘A’, is within their aforesaid holding and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the same. It is specifically averred that about one year prior to filing of the suit, the defendants, with an intention to illegally encroach upon the suit land, started dumping soil and attempted to raise construction thereon, thereby trying to dispossess the plaintiffs forcibly. The plaintiffs claims that they raised objections before the revenue authorities and also initiated proceedings before the Tahsildar, Pandariya, wherein interim protection was initially granted, however, the proceedings were ultimately dismissed and the subsequent appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer also did not yield any relief. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs has filed the Civil Suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession.

(e) The defendant No. 1 has filed his written statement denying the plaint allegations in entirety. It is the specific defence of defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff has deliberately and mischievously included the defendant’s land within the disputed schedule w