Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

30.04.2026

1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 38-A/2014 (Jagdish Prasad Vs. Ajit Suryawanshi & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 141A/2007 (Jagdish Prasad Vs. Ajit Suryawanshi & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 3434/4, admeasuring 0.03 acre, situated at Village Janjgir, P.H. No. 41, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) pleading inter alia that the suit property originally belonged to Ramprasad S/o Bodhiram Suryavanshi, which was purchased by Thakur Surendra Pal Singh by registered sale deed dated 12.01.1970, who thereafter sold the same to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 03.03.1980 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-, pursuant to which the plaintiff claims to have acquired title and continuous possession over the suit property. It is further pleaded that when the plaintiff commenced construction over the suit property in the year 2007, the defendants interfered with his possession and denied his title, despite having no subsisting right therein, as defendant No. 3 had already alienated his land.

3. Defendants No. 3 and 4, while contesting the suit, denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that no land bearing Khasra No. 3434/4 exists on the spot and that the land claimed by the plaintiff actually forms part of Khasra No. 3434/1, which is owned by Defendant No. 3. It was further pleaded that Defendant No. 4 is the authorized representative of Defendant No. 3 and that, pursuant to an order of the Tehsildar, Janjgir, demarcation of the land was carried out on 09.03.2007, wherein the plaintiff was informed that the alleged suit land does not exist on the spot. It was also contended that the land in question is the ancestral property of Defendant No. 3, over which he has constructed a house, and that no agreement has been executed in favour of Swatantra Kumar. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff is attempting to rely on forged documents to lay claim over their land and that the suit has not been properly valued. On these grounds, dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for.

4. After framing the issues, the learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit land, as there were material discrepancies regarding the identity of the land (Khasra No. 3434/4 vis-à-vis 3434/1) and no evidence to establish its conversion or existence. Consequently, the plaintiff was held not entitled to declaration and permanent injunction, and the suit was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 the plaintiff preferred a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments of both the Courts are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended that the appellant has duly proved his title and possession over the suit land through a registered sale deed and supporting evidence, but the same has been