Rakhi Ram vs Darashram

Page 1 of 15

CGHC010023092017 2026:CGHC:45542
ASHOK
SAHU
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK SAHU
Date: 2026.10.28
16:30:05 +0530
FA No. 56 of 2017
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit
No. 11-A/2012 by the First Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District
Janjgir-Champa}
Judgment reserved on: 06-10-2026
Judgment delivered on: 28-10-2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 28-10-2026
Rakhi Ram, S/o. Banshilal, Aged About 48 Years, Caste Dewangan, R/o.
Village Birra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
Plaintiff
versus
1 – Darashram, S/o. Ghasiram, Aged About 70 Years, Caste Satnami, R/o.
Village Taldevri, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Chandram, S/o. Ghasiram, Aged About 65 Years, Caste Satnami, R/o.
Village Taldevri, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh.

Page 2 of 15
4 - Smt. Lata Sharaf, W/o. Yogendra Sharaf, Caste Soni, R/o. Village
Bamhnidih, Tahsil Champa, Through Vishal Enterprises And Jewellers,
Sadar Bazar Road, Bamhnidih, Police Station Bamhnidih, District Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
Defendants
For Appellant : Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms.
Nilu Singh, Advocate
For Respondents No.1,
2 & 4.
: Mr. Amit Kumar Patel, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For State/Respondent
No.3
: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench: -
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J.
C.A.V. Judgment
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant herein/defendant has
preferred this appeal challenging the judgment & decree dated 23-12-
st
2016 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Janjgir,
District-Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No.11A/2012 , by which the
learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the
respondent herein/plaintiff, for declaration of title and possession and
permanent injunction.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop: -
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as
per their status shown and ranking given in the civil suit before the trial
Court.)

Page 3 of 15
-:Factual Matrix:-
Description of suit property -
3. The land bearing Khasra No. 3143 , admeasuring 0.11 acre, situated at
Village - Taldeori, Patwari Halka No . 20, Revenue Inspector
Circle And, Tahsil -Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
(hereinafter referred to as the “ suit land ”).
-: Case of the Plaintiff/Appellant before the trial Court :-
4. The case of the appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram, in brief, is that his
maternal grandfather, Kriparam, had purchased the suit land from
Ghasiram, father of respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2, by a registered
sale deed dated 05/08/1975 and obtained possession thereof. Since
then, Kriparam had been in possession of the suit land. Ghasiram had
no male issue and had only one daughter, Kachrabai. The
appellant/plaintiff is the son of Kachrabai. Kachrabai also had a
daughter, Anganbati, who is the sister of the appellant/plaintiff. When
the appellant/plaintiff was nine years old, his mother Kachrabai died,
and his father, Banshilal, contracted a second marriage. Consequently,
the appellant/plaintiff and his sister, Anganbati, resided with their
maternal grandfather, Kriparam. Kriparam died about 8–10 years prior
to the institution of the suit and his wife died 2–3 years thereafter.
Following the death of his maternal grandfather, the names of the
appellant/plaintiff and his sister, Anganbati, were recorded in the
revenue records in respect of the land owned by Kriparam.

Page 4 of 15
5. The appellant/plaintiff further pleaded that Kriparam and the
appellant/plaintiff were under the impression that the suit land was also
recorded in their names in the revenue records. However, in December
2011, respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 restrained the
appellant/plaintiff from cultivating the suit land on the ground that
their names were recorded in the revenue records. Subsequently, they
sold the suit land to respondent/defendant No. 4- Smt. Lata Sharaf,
despite having no right or authority to do so. Therefore, the suit was
instituted seeking a declaration of title and possession over the suit
land, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land.
-:Written Statement of the Defendant/Respondents before
the trial Court:-
6. Respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2, while denying the plaint
averments in their entirety, filed their written statement contending
that their father, Ghasiram, had never sold the suit land and that they
had been in continuous possession thereof since the time of their father.
They further contended that the suit land had already been sold to
respondent/defendant No.4 by a registered sale deed and that
respondent/defendant No. 4 was in possession thereof. It was pleaded
that the suit had been instituted on the basis of a concocted story and
was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7. Respondent/defendant No. 3, the State, being a formal party to the suit,
did not file any written statement. Despite service of summons,

Page 5 of 15
respondent/defendant No. 3 remained absent and was, therefore,
proceeded ex parte on 22/06/2012.
8. Respondent/defendant No. 4- Smt. Lata Sharaf, while denying the
plaint averments in their entirety, filed a written statement contending
that she had lawfully purchased the suit land from respondent/
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by a registered sale deed dated 16/11/2011 and
obtained possession thereof, upon which her house had been
constructed. She further contended that the plaintiff was not the son of
Kachrabai (daughter of Kriparam) and that Kachrabai had only one
daughter, namely, Anganmati. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was the
son born to Banshilal (husband of Kachrabai) from his second marriage
and had never been in possession of the suit land. On these grounds,
respondent/defendant No. 4 sought dismissal of the suit.
-: Proceedings before the learned Trial Court :-
9. The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence
available on record, framed following issue and answered the issue as
under:-
S.No. Question for Consideration Finding
1. 01 02
क्यावादभूमि कोप्रतिवादीक्रमांक एवं केपिता
. 05.08.1975
स्व घासीरामनेदिनांक केपंजीकृत
?
विक्रयपत्रकेद्वाराकृपारामकोविक्रयकरदियाथा
"
कृपाराम द्वारा वादिभूमि

क्रयकरनेकेपश्चातकोई

कार्यवाहीअपनेजीवनकाल

मेंनहींकीगईउक्त‌कारण

से विक्रय पत्र दिनांक
5/8/1975
टी
को दिखाव

विक्रयपत्रमाना जायेगा

तथायह भी मानाजायेगा

कि कृपारामनेअप्रत्यक्ष

Page 6 of 15

रूपसेअपना हक त्याग
"
दियाथा।
2.
क्यावादीएवंउसकीबहनआंगनमति केमध्यआपसी
?
बंटवाराहोकरवादभूमि वादीकोप्राप्तहुईथी
" "
प्रमाणितनहीं
3. ( ) 01 2
अ क्यावादभूमि परप्रतिवादीक्रमांक एवं का
.
स्व घासीरामकेजीवनकालसेतथाविक्रयपत्रदिनांक
05.08.1975 16.11.2011
केपूर्वसेलगातारदिनांक
?
तकआधिपत्यथा
" "
प्रमाणित
( ) 16.11.2011
ब क्यावादभूमि परदिनांक सेवर्तमान
04 ?
तकलगातारप्रतिवादीक्रमांक काआधिपत्यहै
" "
प्रमाणित
( ) 05.08.1975
स क्या वादभूमि परदिनांक से

कृपाराम का और उसकी मृत्यु उपरांत उसके

उत्तराधिकारीवादीऔरबहनआंगनमतीकालगातार
" "
प्रमाणितनहीं
?
आधिपत्यवर्तमानसमयतकबनाहुआहै
4. 01 02
क्याप्रतिवादीक्रमांक एवं वादभूमि परवादीके
?
आधिपत्यमेंदखलदेरहेंहै
" "
प्रमाणितनहीं
5. " , "
?
हा असंयोजनहै।
क्यामामलेमेंपक्षकारोकाअसंयोजनहै
6. , ? " 34
वांछितअनुतोष अन्यसहायताएवंवादव्यय कडिका केअनुसार
"
वादनिरस्त।
7. ? "
क्यादावाअवधि मेंहै समयावधि मेंप्रस्तुत
"
गया है
किया
-:Details of evidence and documents available before the
Trial Court:-
-:Evidence led by the Appellant/pl aintiff Rakhiram :-
10. Before the Trial Court,the appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram examined
himself as ( P.W.-1) and also examined Ramdayal as a witness (P.W.-
2). In support of his oral testimony, appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram has
exhibited 4 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-4 .

Page 7 of 15
Evidence led by the respondents/defendants :-
11.
The defendants No. 1 to 3, having been proceeded ex parte, have not
adduced any evidence. Respondent/ Defendant No. 4- Smt. Lata Sharaf,
though having cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses, has not adduced
any oral or documentary evidence.
-:Judgment of the trial Court:-
12. Upon completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, by its judgment
and decree dated 23/12/2016, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Being
aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred on the
following grounds:-
(1) Whether the trial court erred in holding that exhibit P.4 sale deed
is ostensible sale deed as per judgment para 19, because there is no
civil suit under section 19 of Contract Act to cancel the sale deed of
appellant's maternal grandfather ?
(2) Whether the trial court has committed an error in deciding whole
suit by taking the sale deed as illegal, in fact sale deed when not
cancelled or declared void by any court of law, cannot be treated as
cancelled or void, therefore findings are perverse and illegal, and
liable to be set-aside?
(3) Whether the suit of appellant was liable to be decreed and
declaration and injunction prayed for ought to have been granted,
because that sale deed was never challenged with 3 years either by

Page 8 of 15
Ghasiram or by their son i.e. respondent no. 1 and 2, therefore the
sale done by the respondent no. 1 and 2 to respondent no. 4 is illegal
and void ab-initio?
(4) Whether the trial court has committed an error in not mutating
the land by patwari in the name of Kriparam, though there is
mention of mutation no. 389 in exhibit P.4, therefore inaction of
patwari whether can be treated or held that registered sale deed gone
due to that omission ?
(5) Whether the suit of appellant has been wrongly dismissed by the
trial court and therefore the suit is liable to be decreed by setting-
aside the judgment and decree of trial court ?
-:Proceedings before the Appellate Court:-
13. Both the parties were heard on this appeal. The evidence and
documents available in the record of the trial Court have been perused.
-:Questions to be considered in this Appeal:-
1. Whether the appellant/plaintiff has established his title over the
suit land bearing Khasra No. 3143, admeasuring 0.11 acre, situated
at Village Taldeori, Patwari Halka No. 20, Revenue Inspector Circle
And, Tahsil Chanpa, District Janjgir-Champa, on the basis of the
alleged registered sale deed dated 05/08/1975 executed in favour of
his maternal grandfather, Kriparam?

Page 9 of 15
2. Whether the appellant/plaintiff has established that he was in
possession of the suit land and is entitled to a decree for possession
and permanent injunction, as prayed for?
3. Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the
suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23/12/2016, and
whether the same warrants interference in this appeal?
-:Argument of the Appellant/Plaintiff- Rakhiram:-
14. The appellant/plaintiff, reiterating the averments made in the plaint,
has mainly contended that his maternal grandfather, Kriparam, had
already purchased the suit land by virtue of the registered sale deed
(Ex.P-4). Therefore, respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no right or
authority to sell the suit land again to respondent/defendant No. 4.
Consequently, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of
respondent/defendant No. 4 could not confer any valid title upon him.
On this basis, it is contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in
dismissing the suit, and the impugned judgment and decree are liable to
be set aside.
-:Argument of the Respondents/defendants :-
15. Per contra, the respondents/defendants, while advancing their
submissions in the light of their respective pleadings, have additionally
drawn the attention of this Court to the admissions made by the
appellant/plaintiff in his cross-examination, contending that he had no
knowledge regarding possession of the suit land, etc. It is further

Page 10 of 15
contended that the appellant/plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to
establish how the suit land, even if belonging to Kriparam, devolved
upon him.
-:Analysis of the Appellate Court:-
Points for determination No (1) to (3).
16. All three questions are interconnected and, therefore, are taken up
together for consideration.
17. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, it emerges that the principal
documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff
Rakhiram is the sale deed (Ex.P-4) , stated to have been executed by
Ghasiram in favour of Kriparam more than 30 years prior to its
production in evidence.
18. The learned Trial Court has accepted the execution of the said sale deed
on account of its being more than 30 years old; however, it has drawn
an inference that Kriparam had abandoned his rights over the suit
land on account of his failure to get his name recorded in the revenue
records. It further emerges from the evidence that Kriparam never got
his name recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit land.
19. The statements made by the appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram(P.W.-1) in
his cross-examination also do not establish his possession over the suit
land. Rather, his testimony indicates that he came to know about the
suit land only about four to five years prior to the institution of the suit.

Page 11 of 15
Thus, the appellant/plaintiff has not satisfactorily established his
possession over the suit land.
20. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the appellant/plaintiff
has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that he is the
son of Kachrabai, the daughter of Kriparam . Furthermore, he has
not impleaded his sister, Anganmati , as a party to the suit, despite
claiming that she is also the daughter of Kachrabai and that,
following the death of Kriparam, their names were recorded in the
revenue records in respect of the land inherited from him. The non-
joinder of Anganmati , therefore, assumes significance in the
adjudication of the appellant/plaintiff's claim.
21. On the other hand, the record contains a subsequent registered sale
deed executed in favour of respondent/defendant No. 4- Smt. Lata
Sharaf in respect of the suit land. Although respondent/defendant No.4-
Smt. Lata Sharaf has not adduced independent oral or documentary
evidence, the appellant/ plaintiff Rakhiram was nevertheless required
to establish his own title and entitlement to the reliefs claimed. The
failure of the defendants to adduce evidence, by itself, would not
dispense with this burden.
22. In these circumstances, the principal questions requiring consideration
are whether the sale deed (Ex.P-4) , notwithstanding the absence of a
corresponding revenue entry in the name of Kriparam, establishes his
title to the suit land; whether the mere failure to mutate his name in the
revenue records can justify an inference that he abandoned his rights

Page 12 of 15
over the property; and whether the appellant/plaintiff has established
his relationship with Kriparam and his entitlement to claim the suit
land through him. These aspects are being examined in the light of the
evidence available on record and the principles governing the
appreciation of evidence.
23. Ordinarily, the mere absence of a person's name in the revenue records
is not sufficient to infer that such person has abandoned his rights over
the property. However, the facts and circumstances of the present case
stand on a different footing. In the present case, neither the executant
nor the beneficiary of the sale deed (Ex.P-4) is alive, and no evidence
has been adduced to establish the actual nature of the transaction
beyond the execution of the document.
24. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that, as pleaded in paragraph
4 of the plaint, Kriparam's name could not be recorded in the revenue
records for reasons not specified. The suit land is agricultural land, and,
from the year 1975 until about 8–10 years prior to the institution of the
suit in 2012, a period of approximately 25–30 years elapsed without
Kriparam's name being recorded in the revenue records. In such
circumstances, the assertion that he continued in possession of the
agricultural land throughout this period, without any corresponding
revenue entry, does not appear convincing, particularly when
possession over agricultural land is also reflected in the revenue records
through entries relating to cultivation and girdawari, and the name of
the person in possession may be recorded even when ownership is
claimed by another person.

Page 13 of 15
25. These circumstances give rise to doubt as to whether the sale deed
(Ex.P-4) represented an actual transaction acted upon by the parties or
remained merely a documentary transaction. This aspect assumes
further significance in view of the appellant/plaintiff's Rakhiram own
case that, after the death of his maternal grandfather, he took steps to
have his and his sister Anganmati's names recorded in respect of
Kriparam's lands. If such steps were indeed taken, it is difficult to
understand how the appellant/plaintiff failed to notice that his name
had not been recorded in respect of the suit land.
26. It is particularly significant that, in paragraph 5 of the cross-
examination of the appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram (P.W.-1) , it has
emerged that he did not know the Khasra number or area of the land,
nor did he know who was in possession thereof. Further, as appears
from paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he came to know about the
suit land only at the time of institution of the suit, and he also admitted
that respondent/defendant No. 4- Smt. Lata Sharaf was presently in
possession thereof. These statements raise serious doubts regarding the
appellant/plaintiff's knowledge of the suit land and the state of its
possession, and do not lend support to his claim concerning possession
or the alleged partiton of the land.
27. The most significant aspect of the matter is that, despite the objection
raised by the opposite party, the appellant/plaintiff Rakhiram neither
impleaded his sister, Anganmati, as a party to the suit nor
examined her as a witness , thereby lending further support to the
inference adverse to his claim. Another important aspect is that the

Page 14 of 15
revenue records (Ex.P-3) reveal that, after the death of
Kriparam's wife , only Anganmati's name was recorded in respect of
the land belonging to Kriparam, and the name of the appellant/plaintiff
was not recorded therein. This circumstance, coupled with the
admissions made by the appellant/plaintiff in his cross-examination,
lends credence to the doubts raised by respondent/defendant No. 4-
Smt. Lata Sharaf regarding the appellant/plaintiff's claim.
28. In view of the non-joinder of Anganmati, the failure of the
appellant/plaintiff to establish his claim through cogent evidence, and
the absence of any convincing material demonstrating that Kriparam
had exercised or continued to enjoy rights over the suit land for a
considerable period after the execution of the sale deed (Ex.P-4), the
learned Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in
recording findings adverse to the appellant/plaintiff.
29. Even if, for the sake of argument, the aforesaid circumstances are
disregarded and it is assumed that Kriparam had purchased the suit
land and obtained possession thereof, the appellant/plaintiff was still
required to establish his entitlement to the suit land as Kriparam's
successor. In this regard, the appellant/plaintiff has not produced any
evidence before the learned Trial Court, such as the Kotwari register or
any other relevant documentary evidence, to establish that his mother
was Kachrabai.
30. A declaration of title in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in the capacity
of Kriparam's successor could not be granted without considering the

Page 15 of 15
rights of the other legal heirs. However, the appellant/plaintiff did not
implead his sister, Anganmati, as a party to the suit, nor did he examine
her as a witness, which could have brought the relevant facts to light.
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant/plaintiff has failed to
establish his title to the suit land and possession thereof. Consequently,
the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court do
not warrant interference by this appellate Court.
-:Final Conclusion:-
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the learned
Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit, as the appellant/plaintiff has
failed to establish his title to and possession over the suit land. No
illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and decree
warranting interference by this appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeal,
being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
33. The judgment and decree dated 23/12/2016 passed by the learned
Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 11A /2012 Rakhiram Vs Darasram and
others are hereby affirmed .
34. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal. A decree be drawn
up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE
Ashok