Chhattisgarh High Court upheld dismissal of a land title suit, rejecting claims based on a 1972 sale deed and affirming the counter-claim

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 118 | 2026:CGHC:6814-DB

February 06, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a first appeal arising from a long-running land ownership dispute, affirming a trial court judgment that rejected the plaintiff’s claim of title based on a 1972 sale deed and upheld a counter-claim filed by the original recorded owner.

The division bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, delivered the judgment on February 6, 2026, concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove either lawful title or continuous possession over the disputed agricultural land measuring 15.95 acres in Dhurrabandha village of Bhatapara tehsil.

The dispute traces back to an alleged sale dated March 21, 1972, under which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land for Rs 1,200 and remained in possession thereafter. However, the plaintiff admitted that no steps were taken to mutate the land in his name for more than three decades. Revenue records consistently reflected the defendant as the owner, and no documentary proof of possession between 1972 and 2011 was produced.

When the defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of a third party in October 2011, the plaintiff approached the civil court seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and a declaration that the later sale was void. The defendant denied executing the 1972 deed, claimed that it was fraudulently obtained, and filed a counter-claim asserting her ownership and possession.

The trial court dismissed the suit in January 2019, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish title, possession, or lawful execution of the earlier sale deed, while the defendant successfully proved continuous possession through revenue records and witness testimony. The counter-claim was allowed, declaring the 1972 document non-binding.

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity and that the trial court had wrongly shifted the burden of proof. They also contended that the counter-claim was barred by limitation. The respondents countered that the plaintiff never sought mutation, failed to prove possession, and had filed a suit for declaration without seeking recovery of possession, rendering it legally defective.

Rejecting the appeal, the High Court reiterated that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies squarely on the plaintiff to succeed on the strength of his own case. The bench noted that mere existence of an old registered document does not by itself establish title when possession is not proved and surrounding circumstances create doubt about its execution.

The court further held that the counter-claim was filed within limitation, as it followed the plaintiff’s institution of the suit and was based on consistent denial of the alleged sale. It also emphasized that seeking only a declaration of title without consequential relief for possession, despite admitting lack of possession, was fatal under settled law.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of the defendant, bringing the decades-old dispute to a close.

Case Reference : FA No. 63 of 2019, Vidhi Narayan Shukla (Died) Through Legal Heirs vs. Ramnaini Bai and Others; Counsels: for the Appellants, Mr. B.P. Sharma with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates; for Respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate; for Respondent No. 3/State, Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L.