1

FA No. 07 of 2015

2026:CGHC:3742

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Order Reserved on 14-01-2026

Order Delivered on 22-01-2026

FA No. 7 of 2015

Smt. Ashawati D/o Late Dharam Singh Bariha Aged About 55 Years W/o

Nurpo, R/o Village- Dongripali, P.S. Dongripali, Tah. Baramkela, Distt.

Raigarh C.G., Chhattisgarh

Appellant

Versus

1 - Rukhmani D/o Late Dharam Singh Bariha Aged About 60 Years W/o

Bhuneshwar, R/o Village- Rajadevri Sonakhan, P.S. And Tah. Pithoura, Distt.

Mahasamund C.G., Chhattisgarh

2 - Jogeshwar S/o Late Dharam Singh Bariha Aged About 50 Years R/o

Village- Dongripali, P.S. Dongripali, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh C.G.,

District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

3 - Janhvi @ Jhumki W/o Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 46 Years R/o Village-

Dongripali, P.S. Dongripali, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh C.G., District :

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

4 - Geetanjali D/o Late Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 30 Years W/o Sanjay,

R/o Village- Saraswati Rice Mill, Naharpara, Mahasamund, P.S., Tah. And

Distt. Mahasamund C.G., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

5 - Pushpanjali D/o Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 28 Years W/o Ramchandra

Bariha, R/o Village- Laxmi Poja Chhak Burla, P.S. And Tah. Burla, Distt.

Sambalpur Orrisa, District : Sambalpur, Orissa

2

FA No. 07 of 2015

6 - Pushpraj S/o Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 26 Years R/o Village-

Dongripali, P.S. Dongripali, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh C.G., District :

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

7 - Shobhanjali D/o Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 24 Years W/o Gokul, R/o

Kelenda, P.S. And Tah. Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund C.G., District :

Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

8 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Jogeshwar Bariha Aged About 22 Years R/o Village-

Dongripali, P.S. Dongripali, Tah. Baramkela, Distt. Raigarh C.G., District :

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

9 - Nalni D/o Nurpo Bariha Aged About 42 Years W/o Biranchi, R/o Village-

Kanshipali, P.S. And Tah. Bhathli, Distt. Bargarh Orissa, District : Bargarh *,

Orissa

10 - Amrawati D/o Dharm Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Rajmahal

Padampur, Police Station, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District Padampur Orrisa ,

Orissa

11 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Raigarh Civil And

Revenue Distt Raigarh C.G., Chhattisgarh

Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) :Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate.

For Resp. No. 1 to 8:Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate.

For State/Resp. No. 11:Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

C A V Judgment

1.The present appeal has been preferred under Section 96 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellant/plaintiff assailing the judgment

and decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District

Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2013

(Smt. Ashawati v. Rukmani & Ors.), by which the suit instituted by the

3

FA No. 07 of 2015

appellant/plaintiff came to be dismissed.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their

status before the learned trial Court.

3.(a) The plaintiff Ashawati filed a Civil suit against Defendant Nos. 1

to 8 for declaration, partition and possession pleading, inter alia, that her

father, late Dharamsingh, had two wives, namely, first wife late Parvati

and his second wife Harsovati (Defendant No. 11). The parties to the

suit are the descendants of late Dharamsingh, and their relationship inter

se is shown in the genealogical tree produced herein below:-

(b)According to the plaintiff, the ancestral property originally stood

recorded in the name and possession of the common ancestor of both the

parties, late Dharamsingh, son of late Shankar Singh Bariha, situated at

Village Dongaripali, Patwari Halka No. 50. The total holding comprised

Late Durpati AshavatiAmravati Jogeshwar (Son)

Geetanjali

(Daughter)

Late Parvati (First Wife)

Rukmani (Daughter)

Nalini

(Daughter)

Pushpanjali

(Daughter)

Pushpraj

(Son)

Shobhanjali

(Daughter)

Rajendra

(Son)

Late Dharamsingh

Harsovati (Second Wife)

4

FA No. 07 of 2015

Khasra No. 45 admeasuring 83.08 acres, including Khasra No. 20

admeasuring 27.83 acres, Khasra No. 19 admeasuring 27.62 acres,

Khasra No. 06 admeasuring 8.13 acres and Khasra No. 02 admeasuring

1.40 acres, consisting of agricultural land, Tikra land, pond, Dih house

and residential plots. It is pleaded that, at present, agricultural land

bearing Khasra No. 30 admeasuring 15.623 acres, situated at Village

Dongaripali, Patwari Halka No. 50, stands recorded in the name of

Defendant No. 2 Jogeshwar, son of late Dharamsingh Binjhawar, as

shown in Schedule “A”. Similarly, agricultural land bearing Khasra No.

14 admeasuring 6.666 acres stands recorded in the names of Defendant

No. 6 Pushpraj and Defendant No. 8 Rajendra Kumar, sons of

Jogeshwar Singh, as shown in Schedule “B”. The plaintiff has been

allotted only Khasra No. 06 admeasuring 3.027 hectares of agricultural

land for her livelihood, shown in Schedule “C”, whereas Defendant No.

10 Amravati has been allotted the entire Khasra No. 02 admeasuring

1.40 acres, shown in Schedule “D”. Schedules “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”

collectively constitute the suit property. It is further pleaded that the suit

lands are ancestral in nature and that, apart from the heirs shown in the

family tree, there are no other legal heirs of late Dharamsingh.

(c)The further case of the plaintiff is that Defendant No. 1 Rukmani

and Defendant No. 2 Jogeshwar, in collusion with their mother late

Parvati and with the connivance of the Patwari and Revenue Inspector,

got the names of the plaintiff, the mother of Defendant No. 9, late

Durpati, and Defendants No. 10 and 11 deleted from the revenue records

5

FA No. 07 of 2015

through Mutation Register Serial Nos. 87 and 88 dated 25.11.1971,

which were subsequently certified by the Certifying Authority on

05.08.1972, with the intention of conferring undue benefit upon

themselves. It is pleaded that on the date of mutation as well as on the

date of certification, the plaintiff, the mother of Defendant No. 9, late

Durpati, and Defendants No. 10 and 11 were minors and had never

given consent for relinquishment of their rights. Therefore, the mutation

order dated 05.08.1972 is alleged to be illegal, void, contrary to law and

not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the alleged

partition was not effected in accordance with the equal proprietary

shares of the parties, as late Dharamsingh owned about 83 acres of

agricultural land at the relevant time, and from the share of his second

wife Harsovati (Defendant No. 11), her heirs, namely, the plaintiff and

Defendants No. 9 and 10, ought to have been allotted about 41.50 acres.

It is contended that the Certifying Authority passed the mutation and

partition order without issuing notice, without affording an opportunity

of hearing, without recording evidence and without conducting any

inquiry, and that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate

disputes relating to the property of minor children, thereby giving rise to

a question of title. The plaintiff further pleaded that upon obtaining a

certified copy of the mutation register on 13.03.2013, she came to know

about the deletion of her name and those of other heirs. The suit has

been valued at ₹1,00,000/- and court fee of ₹565/- has been paid for the

relief of declaration. Since the suit land is recorded as agricultural land,

6

FA No. 07 of 2015

the State of Chhattisgarh has been impleaded as a formal party.

(e)Defendants No. 1 to 8 filed their written statement denying the

plaint averments and contended that the parties belong to the Binjhawar

community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, and therefore the Hindu

Succession Act is not applicable, succession being governed by local

customary law. It is pleaded that late Parvati voluntarily and with

consent allotted the lands described in Schedules “C” and “D” to the

plaintiff and Defendant No. 10 respectively and that the mutation entries

were made with consent. It is further pleaded that the suit, filed after

about 41 years, is barred by limitation and that the valuation of the suit

and payment of court fee are improper.

(f)Defendant No. 10, in her written statement, also denied the plaint

averments, reiterated the applicability of tribal customary law and

asserted that land was allotted as per custom and consent, and that

during the lifetime of sons, daughters have no right in the ancestral

property.

(g)Defendants No. 9 and 11, in their written statement, denied the

plaint averments but alleged that the mutation proceedings were

fraudulently carried out by Defendant No. 2 and his mother late Parvati

by affixing forged thumb impressions and without obtaining consent.

(h) On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Trial Court

framed as many as twelve issues and, upon due appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the

plaintiff holding that she failed to establish any subsisting right, title or

7

FA No. 07 of 2015

interest in the suit property. Hence, this appeal.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the Trial Court

erred in dismissing Civil Suit No. 09-A/2013, as the appellant, being a

minor daughter of late Dharamsingh by his second wife Harsovati, has a

valid entitlement to one-half share of the ancestral property. The deletion

of her name and those of other minor heirs from the revenue records

through Mutation Register Serial Nos. 87 and 88 dated 25.11.1971,

certified on 05.08.1972, was illegal, collusive, and without consent, and

the appellant became aware of it only on 13.03.2013, making the suit

timely. The alleged partition was not in accordance with legal rights, and

the defendants failed to prove consent or prevailing custom justifying

the mutation. The Trial Court overlooked the documentary and oral

evidence establishing the appellant’s entitlement and the illegality of the

mutation. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is unsustainable,

and the appellant is entitled to declaration of her share and partition of

the ancestral property.

5.Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 vehemently opposes the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff

and supports the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court. It is

contended that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and

correctly held that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to establish any

subsisting right, title, or interest in the suit property. The respondents

assert that the mutation order dated 05.08.1972 has long attained finality

and cannot be challenged after such inordinate delay. It is further

8

FA No. 07 of 2015

submitted that the alleged deletion of names from the revenue records

was made in accordance with the consent and customary practice of the

community, and that the appellant/plaintiff, being aware of the mutation,

chose to remain silent for several decades, thus rendering her suit barred

by limitation. The respondents also contend that the Trial Court rightly

rejected the claim of declaration and partition, as no evidence was

produced to show any prevailing custom or legal entitlement that could

override the mutation entries. He would submit that the parties belong

to the Binjhawar community, which is a Scheduled Tribe, and therefore

the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable, succession being governed

by local customary law. In support of his contention, learned counsel

has placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Butaki Bai & Others. v.

Sukhbati & Others, reported in 2014(3) CGLJ, 590, and submits that it

is a settled law that Adiwasi Daughter is not entitled to inherit property

right. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned judgment

is well-reasoned, legally sound, and does not warrant any interference

by this Court.

6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the impugned

judgment.

7.It is required to be noticed that the present appeal arises out of a

judgment and decree passed after full-fledged trial. The jurisdiction of

this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

though wide, is nonetheless circumscribed by well-settled principles.

Interference with findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court is

9

FA No. 07 of 2015

permissible only when such findings are shown to be perverse, based on

no evidence, or arrived at by misreading or ignoring material evidence

on record. This Court does not sit as a court of re-trial to substitute its

own view merely because another view is possible.

8.In his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4, Jogeshwar Singh Bariha (DW-1)

has categorically stated that all the parties belong to the Binjhwar

Scheduled Tribe and that they are not governed by the Hindu Succession

Act. He further deposed that, as per the understanding prevalent in the

community, daughters do not claim a share in the father’s property

during the lifetime of a son.

9.Likewise, Ramchandro Bariha (DW-2), Bideshi Bariha (DW-3) and

Raidhar Bariha (DW-4) have consistently stated that the parties belong

to the Binjhwar Scheduled Tribe and are not governed by the Hindu

Succession Act. Bideshi Bariha (DW-3), who is a priest of the Binjhwar

community, fairly admitted in cross-examination that no codified

personal law or authoritative text exists in respect of the said

community. However, such admission does not advance the case of the

plaintiff, as the burden squarely lay upon her to establish a statutory or

customary right entitling her to inheritance or partition, which she has

failed to do.

10.Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly placed reliance upon the

judgment of this Court in Smt. Butaki Bai (supra), wherein this Court,

while interpreting the scope and effect of Section 2(2) of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956, has categorically held that the provisions of the

10

FA No. 07 of 2015

said Act are not applicable to members of Scheduled Tribes unless it is

specifically established that they have abandoned their customary law of

succession and have become “Hindus out and out” or are “sufficiently

Hinduised”. It was further held that, in the absence of such proof, a

tribal daughter cannot claim inheritance merely by invoking the

principles of Hindu law, and consequently, the suit for declaration and

partition in that case was dismissed.

11.Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, it is an

admitted position that the parties belong to the Binjhwar Scheduled

Tribe. The appellant/plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that the

members of the said tribe have given up their customary mode of

succession or that inheritance amongst them is governed by any School

of Hindu Law. In the absence of such pleading or proof, the statutory

exclusion contained in Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,

squarely applies, and the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim any right of

inheritance or partition under the said Act. The learned Trial Court has,

therefore, rightly rejected the claim of the appellant/plaintiff, and the

reliance placed on Butaki Bai fully supports the impugned judgment and

decree, calling for no interference by this Court.

12.The core of the dispute thereafter centres around the mutation

proceedings reflected in Mutation Register Serial Nos. 87 and 88 dated

25.11.1971, which came to be certified on 05.08.1972. The entire

foundation of the plaintiff’s claim rests upon the plea that the said

mutation was illegal, collusive and non-binding, primarily on the ground

11

FA No. 07 of 2015

that the plaintiff and certain other heirs were minors at the relevant time

and that the proceedings were allegedly conducted without notice,

consent or inquiry. It is therefore evident that unless the plaintiff is able

to successfully impeach the legality and binding nature of the mutation

order dated 05.08.1972, the consequential reliefs of declaration of share

and partition cannot be granted.

13.It is well settled that though mutation entries do not by themselves

confer title, they carry a presumption of correctness so long as they

remain unchallenged and are acted upon for a considerable length of

time. In the present case, the mutation order has remained intact and

operative for more than four decades prior to the institution of the suit in

the year 2013.

14.The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that such long-standing

revenue entries, which have governed possession and enjoyment of the

land for several decades, cannot be lightly brushed aside on the basis of

bald and unsubstantiated allegations. The plaintiff has failed to produce

any contemporaneous material to show that the certifying authority

acted without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory procedure.

15.The plaintiff has heavily relied upon the plea that she was a minor at the

time of mutation and that no consent was ever given on her behalf.

However, mere minority at the relevant time does not, by itself, render a

revenue entry void or non est in the eye of law. It was incumbent upon

the plaintiff to establish that the mutation was obtained by fraud,

12

FA No. 07 of 2015

misrepresentation or suppression of material facts.

16.It is also significant to note that the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded or

proved that she had appended her signature or thumb impression on the

mutation proceedings culminating in the order dated 05.08.1972, nor has

she led any evidence to show that any such signature or thumb

impression was obtained fraudulently or without authority. The

contemporaneous revenue record, particularly Exhibit P-5, only records

her presence and acceptance of the mutual partition, which stands

corroborated by her long, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the

land allotted to her for more than four decades. In such circumstances,

the absence of any specific proof regarding signatures or thumb

impressions is wholly inconsequential, as consent, knowledge and

acquiescence to the mutation proceedings stand sufficiently established

from the record and subsequent conduct of the plaintiff.

17.From the perusal of the contemporaneous revenue record, particularly

Mutation Register Nos. 87 to 90 and Exhibit P-5, it clearly emerges that

the plaintiff was present at the time of the mutation and partition

proceedings, which culminated in the order dated 05.08.1972, and that

the said proceedings bear her endorsement by way of signature/thumb

impression, as recorded by the certifying authority. The plaintiff has

neither specifically denied the affixation of her signature or thumb

impression on the said proceedings nor has she led any cogent evidence

to establish that the same was forged, fabricated or obtained by fraud or

13

FA No. 07 of 2015

misrepresentation. In the absence of any such proof, a statutory

presumption attaches to the correctness of official acts, and the mutation

order must be held to have been passed with the knowledge, consent and

participation of the plaintiff.

18.The Trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, has recorded a

finding that no reliable evidence has been adduced to prove that the

thumb impressions or signatures affixed during mutation proceedings

were forged or fabricated. Allegations of fraud, being serious in nature,

require strict proof, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

19.The conduct of the plaintiff assumes significance. The plaintiff

admittedly remained silent for more than forty years and did not raise

any objection either before the revenue authorities or before any

competent forum. Such prolonged inaction militates against the plea of

lack of knowledge.

20.On due appreciation of the evidence, it further emerges that the

plaintiff’s own deposition materially weakens her case. In her cross-

examination, the plaintiff candidly admitted that she does not remember

her date of birth or even her present age and was unable to state what

age was mentioned in her affidavit, asserting that the same was written

by her advocate as she is illiterate. She also expressed ignorance about

the extent of land standing in her father’s name as well as in the name of

Defendant No. 2, Jogeshwar Bariha, and failed to give any definite

particulars in this regard. Such admissions clearly belie her plea that she

14

FA No. 07 of 2015

was a minor at the relevant time of mutation proceedings in the years

1971–72 and that the proceedings were conducted behind her back. On

the contrary, her inability to state basic facts relating to her age and

property, coupled with her admissions regarding long, continuous

possession and enjoyment of land allotted to her for about four decades,

demonstrates that her challenge to the mutation and partition is an

afterthought, lacking credibility and evidentiary support.

21.The explanation that the plaintiff came to know about the mutation only

on 13.03.2013 has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court,

particularly in view of the admitted fact that land was allotted to the

plaintiff and she was in possession thereof. A person in possession and

enjoyment of ancestral property cannot plausibly plead complete

ignorance of the revenue status for decades.

22.The learned Trial Court has correctly held that the suit is hopelessly

barred by limitation. A suit seeking declaration that a long-standing

mutation order is void and non-binding squarely attracts the law of

limitation. Once the cause of action had arisen in the year 1972, or at

least when the plaintiff attained majority, the plaintiff was required to

seek appropriate relief within the prescribed period.

23.Permitting such stale claims to be agitated after an inordinate delay

would defeat the very object of the law of limitation, which is founded

upon public policy and aims at ensuring certainty and finality in legal

relations.

15

FA No. 07 of 2015

24.The defendants have consistently pleaded that the parties belong to a

Scheduled Tribe community and that succession and partition are

governed by customary law. Even otherwise, the burden squarely lay

upon the plaintiff to prove her entitlement to a specific share in the

ancestral property, either under statutory law or under established

custom.

25.The learned Trial Court has recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff

failed to prove any such prevailing custom or legal provision entitling

her to the reliefs claimed. In the absence of proof of title or enforceable

right, a decree for declaration or partition cannot be granted.

26.The contention that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to pass

the mutation order in respect of minors has also been rightly repelled.

Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not decide title. Unless

the mutation order is shown to be patently without jurisdiction or

vitiated by fraud, the same cannot be ignored in collateral civil

proceedings after decades.

27.While dismissing the suit, the Trial Court specifically found that the

mutation order dated 05.08.1972 had attained finality and could not be

assailed after an inordinate delay, rendering the suit barred by limitation.

It was further held that even the plaintiff failed to prove any prevailing

custom or legal entitlement warranting the relief of declaration or

partition and, in the absence of proof of title, the reliefs claimed were

not maintainable.

16

FA No. 07 of 2015

28.On a cumulative consideration of the entire material on record and

considering the detailed analysis made by the learned trial Court, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has

meticulously examined the pleadings, framed appropriate issues and

rendered findings based on evidence. The impugned judgment and

decree neither suffers from perversity nor from any legal infirmity

warranting interference.

29.The appellant has failed to make out any ground under Section 96 of the

Code of Civil Procedure for reversal of the well-reasoned judgment and

decree passed by the learned Trial Court.

30.Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and

decree dated 23.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2013 are

affirmed.

31.A decree be drawn accordingly.

Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)

JUDGE

Rahul/Gowri