Sanjeev Kumar vs Kush Kumar Singh And Ors.

1

CGHC010003452014 2026:CGHC:45540
NAFR
ASHOK
SAHU
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by ASHOK SAHU
Date: 2026.10.28
16:48:24 +0530
S.A. No. 263 of 2014
{Arising out of judgment and decree dated 19.06.2014 passed in Civil
Appeal No.1-A/2014 by the Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir,
District Janjgir-Champa}
Judgment reserved on: 30-9-2026
Judgment delivered on: 28-10-2026
Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 28-10-2026
Sanjeev Kumar, S/o. Love Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Village
Sankar, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), At
Present R/o. Akaltara, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.).
... Appellant
Plaintiff
versus
1. Kush Kumar Singh, S/o. Achal Dhruve, Aged About 62 Years, R/o.
Village Sankar, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.), At Present R/o. Akaltara, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt.
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
2. Love Kumar, S/o. Achal Dhruve, Aged About 65 Years, R/o.
Village Sankar, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa
(C.G.), At Present R/o. Akaltara, Tahsil & P.S. Akaltara, Distt.
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Janjgir-Champa,
Tahsil & P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Respondents
Defendants

For Appellant : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal with Mr.
Sourabh Agrawal, Advocates.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prakash Mishra with Mr. Vijay Shankar
Mishra, Advocates
For Respondent No.2 : None appeared though served
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. K. Radhika, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench: -
Hon'ble Smt. Sushma Sawant, J.
C.A.V. Judgment
1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant herein/plaintiff has
preferred this appeal challenging the judgment & decree dated 19-
06-2014 passed by the First Appellate Court Second Additional
District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal
No.1-A/2014, arising out of judgment & decree dated 18.10.2011
passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa
in Civil Suit No.88-A/2011, by which the learned Civil Judge
Class-I has decreed the suit for declaration of title, permanent
injunction and possession.

3
-:Admitted Facts:-
2. It is not in dispute that Achhaldhruw Singh and Radhabai were
the grandfather and grandmother, respectively, of the appellant/
plaintiff Sanjeev Kumar , and both have since died. Respondent/
defendant No. 1 Kush Kumar Singh is the uncle of the
appellant/plaintiff, whereas respondent/defendant No. 2 Love
Kumar Singh is his father . It is also an admitted fact that a partition
took place between respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the year
1981.
3. It is also an admitted fact that the lands described in Schedules A
and B are recorded in the names of respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively, as detailed below:
Schedule A
Lands recorded in the name of respondent/defendant No. 1 Kush Kumar Singh
Khasra No. 4. Area(hectare)
304/39 0.008
304/43 0.024
309 0.004
428/2 1.424
428/4 0.502
446/11 0.628
92/6 0.251
386/3 0.182
394/2 1.275
Total-9 Total-4.298
Schedule B
Lands recorded in the name of respondent/defendant No. 2 Love Kumar Singh

4
Khasra No. Area(hectare)
252 0.049
428/3 2.961
445/1 1.267
446/8 0.630
92/2 0.251
386/1 0.182
394/1 1.274
Total-7 Total-6.614
5. It is further an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff Sanjeev
Kumar filed an application before the Revenue Court seeking
mutation of his name in respect of Khasra No. 446/8 ad
measuring 3.11 acre on the basis of a Will stated to have been
executed by his grandmother, Radhabai, in his favour. However, the
said application was rejected by the Revenue Court.
-:Factual Matrix:-
-:Case of the Appellant/Plaintiff herein before the Trial Court:-
(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.)
6. The appellant/plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that all the lands in question
originally belonged to his grandfather, Achal Dhruw Singh , and
constituted his ancestral property. In the partition effected in the
year 1981 between the appellant/plaintiff’s father
respondent/defendant No.2 Love Kumar Singh , his uncle
respondent/defendant No.1 Kush Kumar Singh and his

5
grandmother, Radhabai, the land bearing Khasra No. 446/8,
admeasuring 3.11 acres , situated at Village -Sankar , fell to the
share of Radhabai (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The
appellant/plaintiff pleaded that Radhabai executed a registered
Will dated 23.05.2000, bequeathing the suit property in his favour.
As the application for mutation of the suit property on the basis of
the said Will was rejected by the Tehsildar, the appellant/plaintiff
instituted the suit seeking declaration of title over the suit property,
permanent injunction and possession. In the alternative, the
appellant/plaintiff sought a declaration of his entitlement to
Radhabai’s share in the lands jointly recorded in the names of
respondent/defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in the event the partition was
not accepted.
-: Written Statement of the Respondents/Defendants before
the Trial Court :-
7.
Respondent/Defendant No. 1 (uncle of plaintiff), while admitting the
facts not specifically disputed, denied the remaining averments of the
plaint, particularly the appellant/plaintiff’s claim that the suit
property had fallen to the share of Radhabai in the partition of 1981.
He pleaded that, with the consent of Radhabai, the lands had been
divided equally between the two brothers(respondent/defendant
No.1-2) and that Radhabai had never challenged the said partition.
He further denied the appellant/plaintiff’s claim under the registered
Will dated 23.05.2000 and contended that Radhabai had no
ownership over the suit property, as the same had been kept only for

6
her maintenance during her lifetime. Accordingly, he disputed the
appellant/plaintiff’s entitlement to the reliefs claimed and sought
dismissal of the suit.
8. Respondent/Defendant No. 2 (father of plaintiff), filed his written
statement admitting the allegations made by the appellant/plaintiff
and prayed that the plaintiff be declared entitled to Radhabai's share
in the property. Defendant No. 2 was proceeded ex parte on
14.10.2009 and did not lead any evidence.
9. Respondent/Defendant No. 3, the State Government, was also
proceeded ex parte on 08.08.2008 and did not file any written
statement.
-: Proceedings before the Trial Court :-
10. 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. 0 1 2 1981
क्याप्रतिवादीकं एवं आपसीबंटवारावर्ष
हाँ

केअनुसारउनकीमॉराधाबाईकोवादभूमि मेंसेग्राम
0 0 446/8 3.11
सांकरस्थि तख नं रकबा एकड़भूमि
?
बंटवारेमेंमिलीथी
2.
यदि हाँतोक्याराधाबाईनेअपनेहिस्सेकीभूमि के
हाँ

संबंधमेंवादी केपक्षमेंपंजीकृतवसीयतनामा
?
निष्पादितकियाहै

7
3.
क्या राधाबाईद्वारा वादी केपक्षमें निष्पादित
नहीं
?
वसीयतनामाफर्जीएवंकूटरचितहै
4.
क्याग्रामअकलतरास्थि तवादभूमि केसंबंधमें
नहीं
?
मणीसिंहआवश्यकपक्षकारहै
हाँ
5.

क्यावादीवादभूमि मेंसेग्रामसांकरस्थि तख०नं०
446/8 3.11 ?
रकबा एकडकास्वत्वाधिकारीहै

विकल्पमें
1/3
क्यावादीपरिशिष्टअएवंवकीवादभूमि मेंसे

भागका अधिकारी होकरविभाजनकरा पानेका
?
अधिकारीहै
6. ?
क्यावादीकादावापरिसीमाअवधि सेबाधितहै नहीं
7. .
क्यावादी प्रतिवादीगणकेविरूद्धस्थायीव्यादेशप्राप्त
हाँ
?
करनेकाअधिकारीहै
8.
क्यावादीग्रामसांकरस्थि तवादभूमि काकब्जा
हाँ
?
प्रतिवादीगणसेप्राप्तकरनेकेअधिकारीहै
9. ?
सहायताएवंव्यय वादीकादावाप्रभावित
18
कण्डि का के
अनुसार
-: Evidence adduced before the Trial Court:-
Evidence led by the Appellants/Pl aintiffs:-
11. Before the learned Trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff Sanjeev
Kumar examined himself as PW-1, Madan Mohan Singh (PW-
2) & Radha Vallabh Pandey (PW-3) in support of his case. In
support of his oral testimony, he produced and exhibited fifteen
documents, which were marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-15.

8
Evidence led by the Resondnet/Defendant No.1 :-
12. The respondent/defendant No.1 Kush Kumar Singh examined
himself as DW-1 in support of his case. However, he has not
exhibited any documents. The defendants No.2 & 3 have proceeded
ex parte.
Judgment of the Trial Court:-
13. Parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence and after
completion of trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment & decree
dated 18.10.2011 decreed the suit for declaration of title,
permanent injunction and possession in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff.
-: Finding of the First Appellate Court/Impugned Judgment :-
14.
Being aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 18.10.2011 passed
by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.88-A/2011 (Sanjeev Kumar v. Kush
Kumar Singh & Others), the defendant No.1 Kush Kumar Singh has
filed appeal (Civil Appeal No.1-A/2014 (Kush Kumar Singh v. Sanjeev
Kumar Singh & Others) before the First Appellate Court.
15. The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the
evidence, held that the suit property was not exclusively owned or
possessed by Radhabai and that the respective half shares were in the
possession of Love Kumar Singh, the plaintiff’s father, and Kush
Kumar Singh. It further held that the Will appeared to have been
executed under undue influence and could not confer any right upon

9
the plaintiff, as Radhabai’s ownership of the bequeathed property on
the date of its execution was not established. Accordingly, the appeal
was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011 passed
by the Trial Court were set aside.
-: Substantial Questions of Law :-
16. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff herein was
admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. “Whether, the lower appellate Court has committed an
illegality in holding that Radhabai, the predecessor-in-interest
of the parties, was not competent to execute the registered deed
of Will dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.P.1) with regard to the property
in question bearing Khasra No.446/8 admeasuring 3.11 acres
in favour of her grandson Sanjeev Kumar ?
2. Whether, the finding of the lower appellate Court
disbelieving the due execution, attestation and validity of the
registered deed of Will dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.P.1), said to have
been executed by one Radhabai in favour of her grandson, the
Plaintiff, while reversing the finding of the trial Court, is
perverse ?"
-: Analysis and findings of the Second Appellate Court:-
17.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court proceeds to examine the substantial questions of
law involved in the present appeal.

10
-: Submissions of the Appellant/Plaintiff herein :-
18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that
the First Appellate Court has erred in law as well as on facts in
reversing the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court. It is contended that the First Appellate Court has misread and
misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence available on
record, particularly the evidence relating to the possession and title
over the suit property. He further submits that the Will executed in
favour of the plaintiff was duly proved and the Trial Court had rightly
acted upon the same. The finding of the First Appellate Court that the
testatrix had no right or title over the property covered by the Will is
contrary to the evidence on record and has been recorded without
properly appreciating the nature of the parties' possession and the
earlier partition.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further submits that the
First Appellate Court committed a serious error in holding that the
suit property had already been divided between the concerned
parties and, on that basis, denying the plaintiff's claim under the
Will. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside
and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court be restored.
-: Submissions of the Respondent/defendant No.1:-
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant
No.1 submits that the judgment and decree passed by the First

11
Appellate Court is based upon proper appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence on record and calls for no interference in the
present second appeal. It is contended that the suit property had
already been divided between father of appellant/plaintiff Love
Kumar Singh and uncle Kush Kumar Singh and both were in
possession of their respective half shares. Radha Bai, therefore, had
no exclusive right, title or interest over the entire suit property so as
to bequeath the same in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged Will was neither
duly proved nor could it confer any better title upon the plaintiff than
what was possessed by the testatrix. The plaintiff also failed to
establish that the property covered by the Will was owned by Radha
Bai on the date of execution of the Will. Thus, the First Appellate
Court has rightly reversed the erroneous findings of the Trial Court.
It is, therefore, submitted that no substantial question of law arises in
the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
-:Consideration of Substantial Question of Law No.1 & 2 :-
22. Both the substantial questions of law being interconnected, they are
taken up together for consideration.
23.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration
of the pleadings, evidence available on record, the judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below, and the submissions advanced
on behalf of the respective parties, this Court proceeds to examine

12
the substantial question of law formulated in the present second
appeal, namely,
“1. Whether, the lower appellate Court has committed an
illegality in holding that Radhabai, the predecessor-in-interest
of the parties, was not competent to execute the registered deed
of Will dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.P.1) with regard to the property
in question bearing Khasra No.446/8 admeasuring 3.11 acres
in favour of her grandson Sanjeev Kumar ?
2.Whether, the finding of the lower appellate Court
disbelieving the due execution, attestation and validity of the
registered deed of Will dated 23.05.2000 (Ex.P.1), said to have
been executed by one Radhabai in favour of her grandson, the
Plaintiff, while reversing the finding of the trial Court, is
perverse ? ”
24. The learned Trial Court granted relief to the plaintiff/appellant
Sanjeev Kumar on the basis of the Will Ex.P.-1 allegedly executed by
the grandmother Radhabai in favour of her grandson
plaintiff/appellant Sanjeev Kumar . The learned Trial Court found
that the suit property had fallen to the share of the grandmother
Radhbai in partition and accepted the testimony of the attesting
witness as sufficient to prove the execution of the Will.
25. The learned First Appellate Court, however, reversed the said
finding, taking into consideration that the partition effected in the
year 1981 between the plaintiff’s father respondent/defendant No.2

13
and the uncle respondent/defendant No.1 was admitted by both
parties . The learned First Appellate Court further observed that the
name of the grandmother was not recorded in the revenue records. It
also relied upon the admission made by the appellant/plaintiff
th
Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.-1) in 6 line of para 22 his cross-
examination that he had been seeing his uncle respondent/defendant
No.1 and father respondent/defendant No.2 in possession of and
cultivating the respective halves of the suit property.
26. According to the learned First Appellate Court, this admission
corroborated the respondent/defendant No. 1's stand that the suit
property had fallen to the shares of both brothers, namely,
respondent/defendant No. 1 and respondent/defendant No. 2, the
grandmother's sons, in the partition of 1981, which explained why
their names, and not that of the grandmother, were recorded in the
revenue records.
27. The learned First Appellate Court further disbelieved the Will Ex.P.-
1 in view of the circumstances surrounding its execution and the
material contradiction between the testimony of the beneficiary
Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.-1) and that of the attesting witness Radha
Vallabh Pandey (P.W.-3) .
28. The first aspect requiring consideration is whether the absence of the
grandmother Radhbai's name in the revenue records was sufficient to
hold that she was not competent to execute the Will. It is settled that
revenue entries are primarily maintained for fiscal purposes and do
not, by themselves, confer or extinguish title to immovable property.

14
Therefore, the mere absence of the grandmother's name in the
revenue records could not, by itself, establish that she had no right or
interest in the suit property or that she was legally incapable of
executing a Will. Nevertheless, the person propounding a Will must
establish that the testatrix had a right or interest in the property
which she purported to bequeath.
29. In the present case, the partition between the two sons
{respondent/defendant No.-1 Kush Kumar Singh and
respondent/defendant No.-2 Love Kumar Singh (father of
appellant/plaintiff)} of the grandmother Radhabai during her
lifetime is admitted, and, as per the revenue records, the suit
property stood recorded in equal shares in the names of both sons.
30.
In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Trial Court that the
suit property had fallen to the share of the grandmother required
support from the evidence relating to the alleged partition in her
favour. However, the evidence available on record does not clearly
establish that the suit property had fallen to the share of the
grandmother, particularly when the partition was not challenged by
her during her lifetime.
31. The next aspect concerns the proof of the Will EX.P.-1 and the
circumstances surrounding its execution. Under Section 63 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 , read with Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , the execution and attestation of a Will
must be proved in accordance with the statutory requirements. The

15
testimony of an attesting witness is material for this purpose;
however, the Court must examine whether the evidence establishes
the necessary requirements of due execution and attestation. Where
suspicious circumstances surround the execution of a Will, the
propounder is required to dispel the legitimate doubts arising from
such circumstances.
32. In the present case, a material contradiction emerges from the
testimony of the beneficiary Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.-1) under the
Will and that of the attesting witness Radha Vallabh Pandey
(P.W.-3) . The beneficiary Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.-1) stated that he
was not present at the time of execution of the Will and that he did
not know who had purchased the stamp paper. On the other hand,
the attesting witness Radha Vallabh Pandey (P.W.-3) stated that
the beneficiary was present at the time of execution. Further, the
evidence on record indicates that the stamp paper had been
purchased by the beneficiary himself. If these circumstances stand
established from the evidence, the beneficiary's denial of his presence
and his professed lack of knowledge regarding the purchase of the
stamp paper assume significance in assessing the credibility of his
testimony and the circumstances in which the Will came to be
executed.
33. These circumstances cannot be examined in isolation. They must be
considered cumulatively along with the admitted partition between
the two sons, the entries in the revenue records, the evidence
regarding the grandmother's rights in the suit property, and the

16
testimony of the attesting witness. The fact that the learned Trial
Court accepted the attesting witness's testimony does not, by itself,
preclude the learned First Appellate Court from taking a contrary
view, provided that such view is founded upon a proper appreciation
of the evidence and cogent reasons recorded in support thereof.
34. The principles governing the proof of a Will and the obligation to
dispel suspicious circumstances have been explained by the Supreme
Court in Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa , (2021) 11 SCC 277 .
The Court is required to examine whether the Will has been duly
proved and whether the suspicious circumstances, if any,
surrounding its execution have been satisfactorily explained. The
existence of suspicious circumstances does not automatically
invalidate a Will; however, where legitimate doubts arise from the
evidence, the propounder must satisfy the Court regarding the
genuineness of the testamentary disposition.
35. At this stage, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of
jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
This Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of a first appellate court
and cannot interfere with findings of fact merely because another
view of the evidence is possible. Interference is warranted only where
the findings are vitiated by a substantial error of law, perversity,
reliance upon inadmissible evidence, disregard of material evidence,
or another infirmity giving rise to a substantial question of law. The
principles governing such limited jurisdiction have been reiterated by

17
the Supreme Court in Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala , (2020) 19
SCC 57 .
36. In the present case, the learned First Appellate Court, upon proper
examination and appreciation of the evidence on record, has recorded
its findings regarding the admitted partition, the absence of evidence
establishing the grandmother’s rights in the suit property, and the
material contradiction in the testimony of the beneficiary and the
attesting witness concerning the execution of the Will. On the basis of
the aforesaid circumstances and the evidence available on record, the
learned First Appellate Court has rightly concluded that the
grandmother had no right or interest in the suit property and,
accordingly, disbelieved the Will set up by the beneficiary.
37. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the cumulative
effect of the relevant evidence and assigned cogent reasons for its
conclusion. The findings so recorded are supported by the evidence on
record and do not suffer from any perversity or substantial error of
law warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 of the
CPC. Accordingly, both substantial questions of law relating to the
Will are answered against the appellant.
:Final Conclusion:- -
38.
In view of the foregoing discussion and the answers to both
substantial questions of law, this Court finds no merit in the present
appeal. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned

18
First Appellate Court do not warrant any interference under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
39. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed . The judgment and
decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court are hereby
affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall
bear their own costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sushma Sawant)
JUDGE
Ashok