2026:CGHC:21100 SOURABH BHILWAR SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.08 11:07:33 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 585 of 2018 Budhani Bai D/o Late Gurudayal Aged About 62 Years R/o Vill Manpur, P.S. And Tah. Pratappur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District :

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s)

versus

1 - Dhani Ram S/o Ram Sai, Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Baikona, Tah. Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Chandan, S/o Dipan, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Baikona, Tah.

Pratappur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surajpur Chhattisgarh …. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

06/05/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 06-A/2016 (Budhani Bai vs. Dhani Ram & Ors.), affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 68-A/2011 (Budhani Bai vs. Dhani Ram & Ors.), 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 has instituted the present suit against the defendants seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 265 admeasuring 0.437 hectares situated at Village Rampur, Tahsil Pratappur, as described in Schedule “A” appended to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”), pleading inter alia that the suit land was the self- acquired property of her father, late Gurudayal Gond, whose name was recorded in the settlement records during the survey settlement operations and who remained in peaceful possession and cultivation thereof during his lifetime. It is further pleaded that after the death of Gurudayal Gond, the name of the plaintiff’s mother, Dashmet Bai, was mutated in the revenue records, and since Gurudayal Gond had no male issue, the plaintiff, being his daughter, continued to reside with and look after her mother while cultivating the suit land. The plaintiff has further alleged that after the death of Dashmet Bai in January, 1983, defendant No.1, in collusion with defendant Nos.2 and 3, fraudulently executed a purported registered sale deed dated 14.03.1983 by impersonating another woman as Dashmet Bai and thereafter got the revenue records mutated in his favour on the basis of the said forged sale deed. According to the plaintiff, the said sale deed and consequential mutation entries are fraudulent, illegal and void, thereby clouding the plaintiff’s title over the suit land, for which the present suit has been filed.

3. Per contra, defendant No.1, in his written statement, denied all the material averments made in the plaint and pleaded that the suit land was the self-acquired property of late Gurudayal Gond, but the plaintiff is not his legal heir and had never resided in Village Rampur. It was further pleaded that after the death of Gurudayal Gond, the land was duly mutated in the name of his wife, Dashmet Bai, who remained in possession and cultivation thereof as owner during her lifetime. According to the defendant, Dashmet Bai had validly executed a registered sale deed dated 14.03.1983 in favour of defendant No.1 after receiving consideration of Rs.2,000/-, pursuant to which his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. The defendant further contended that the parties belong to the Gond tribal community and are governed by their own customs and traditions, and not by general Hindu law. It was also pleaded that Dashmet Bai died on 08.09.1983