News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 12
Bilaspur – 05.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has delivered a detailed and closely watched judgment in a decades-old property dispute from Raipur, bringing partial closure to a complex family conflict rooted in transactions dating back nearly a century. The ruling was pronounced by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu on January 5, 2026, in Second Appeal No. 13 of 2019.
The case revolved around a parcel of land with residential structures located in Byron Bazar, Raipur. The dispute involved the legal heirs of Fazlurrahman and those of Habiburrahman, both tracing their claims to property originally purchased in 1924 by Mohd. Abdul Rahim. Over the years, the land became the subject of multiple transfers, including a registered sale deed in 1929, alleged oral gifts (hiba), revenue mutations, and a contested registered Bakshishnama ( gift deed) executed in 1958.
The plaintiffs approached the civil court seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction, asserting that one portion of the property had been gifted orally to their predecessor, Fazlurrahman, before the original owner migrated to Pakistan. They argued that their possession was lawful and long-standing, and that later revenue entries in favour of the defendants were obtained without due process.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit while allowing the defendants’ counterclaim, holding that the defendants had acquired valid title through the 1958 Bakshishnama. This led the plaintiffs to file a second appeal before the High Court, raising a substantial question of law on whether a person who had already sold the property could legally execute a gift deed years later.
After an extensive review of pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence, the High Court drew a nuanced distinction between possession, revenue records, and legal title. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiffs failed to prove a valid oral hiba in their favour, noting the absence of clear pleadings, witnesses, or corroborative documents. As a result, the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ original suit was affirmed.
However, the High Court took a different view regarding the defendants’ counterclaim. It held that once Mohd. Abdul Rahim had sold the entire property through a registered sale deed in 1929, he could not convey a better title than he possessed later. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership and are meant only for fiscal purposes. Since the defendants failed to establish how Abdul Rahim lawfully reacquired title before executing the 1958 Bakshishnama, the Court found the gift deed legally unsustainable.
In a significant outcome, the High Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court insofar as they declared the defendants to be owners of the entire suit property. Consequently, both the suit and the counterclaim now stand dismissed, leaving neither party with a judicial declaration of title based on the contested claims.
The ruling underscores important principles of property law, particularly that long-standing revenue entries cannot substitute for valid title deeds, and that a donor cannot transfer rights he does not legally possess. Legal observers note that while the judgment may not fully resolve possession on the ground, it clarifies the limits of gift deeds and revenue mutations in title disputes, especially those arising from pre-Partition transactions .
Case Reference : SA No. 1 3 of 2019, M.A. Rafi (Dead ) Through Lrs., and Others vs Ejazurrahman and Others
Counsels : For Appellants : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate
