News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 43
Bilaspur, January 13, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has reaffirmed the legal validity of a decades-old oral family partition, dismissing a second appeal that challenged concurrent findings of two lower courts. In its judgment delivered on January 13, 2026, the court held that an oral partition carried out around 1950 between members of a joint Hindu family had been consistently acted upon and could not be unsettled after more than half a century.
The case arose from a property dispute in Surguja district involving descendants of a common ancestor, late Kundo Uraon. The plaintiffs claimed ownership over agricultural land in village Rakeli, asserting that the property had fallen to their share following an oral family settlement during Kundo Uraon’s lifetime. Other properties, located in village Kalyanpur, were said to have been allotted to another branch of the family. The dispute surfaced only in 2005, when the defendants questioned the earlier arrangement and sought repartition.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court accepted the plaintiffs’ version, relying on revenue records, long-standing possession, and oral evidence showing that the family branches had lived separately, cultivated different lands, and even sold portions of their respective shares without objection. These findings were challenged in a second appeal on the ground that the alleged partition lacked documentary proof and was therefore perverse.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, however, found no merit in the challenge. The High Court observed that the evidence on record clearly demonstrated severance of status, separate possession, and uninterrupted enjoyment of the properties by different branches of the family for over four decades. Importantly, the court noted admissions by the defendants that they had sold land from their share in Kalyanpur, a fact that strongly indicated acceptance of the earlier partition.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that family arrangements occupy a special place in law. Courts lean in favour of such settlements when they are bona fide and have been acted upon, even if they are oral and not reduced to writing. Technical objections, the court said, cannot override the objective of maintaining family harmony and avoiding protracted litigation.
The court also emphasised the limited scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are shown to be based on no evidence, contrary to pleadings, or so unreasonable that no judicial mind could have reached them. In the present case, none of these conditions were met.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the decrees passed by the courts below, confirming the plaintiffs’ title and possession over the disputed property. No order as to costs was made.
Case Reference : SA No. 75 of 2014, Charki Bai (D/o Late Gosla) & Others v. Budhram (S/o Late Nanku) & Others; Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate; Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 6: Mr. Shubham Tiwari, on behalf of Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate; Counsel for Respondent No. 7/State: Mr. Aman Tamboli, Public Lawyer.