\{x $ K ? EFORE THE HON’BLE HIéH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench -' x Second Aggeal No. 2 ‘19“0f 2006. :- [Shiv Kumar, Son of Mangal Singh, aged 37 years, Caste ‘— Gbnd, resident of Village Kaskela, Past Salka, P.S. Pratappul, Tahsil Surajptir, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh), z APPELLANT i. DEFENDANT / VERSUS ARESPONDENTS 13/ 53 years, y2‘. Bihari, son of Ramsai, aged about 25 years, ¢3t Shiv Prasad, son of Ramsai, aged about 23 years, v % Dilbasiya, daughter of Ramsai,-‘aged about 21 years, [.(5. Sonia, daghter of Ramsai, aged about 19 years, 6, Nano, daughter of Ramsai, aged about 17 years, 7. Fulbasiya, daughter of Ramsai, aged about 16 years, All through their natural guardian mother Kunti Devi widow of Ramsai, all by Caste Cherwa, resident of Village Kaskela, P.S. Pratappur, . Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) V .r/ \g/ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 463/: and c.f paid at Rs. 4%??only) V a. , B a 1 XI—HC-78 1F mw,m,m WW gnA‘ 2.“:2 [ .Q..$O.. an; 200 WW(W) WW§WWW wwwm , %aa%wn% 34m$l2§Q6 $hri Pankaj Agrawal, learr ed caunsel for the appeHant. Heard on the question of admission, The appeilant has preferred this second appea! Uls 100 of the Code of Civii Procedure against iihe judgment and decree dated 17/2/2006 passed by Second Additional Dietric’c Judge (FTC) surajpur, District Sarguja in civii appeai No. 39—M2005 by which the judgment and decree dated. 30l1/2004 paseed by Civii Judge Ciass—il Surejpur, in ‘civii suit N0. 208-A/2002 has been cenfirmed. This appeai is directed ac ainst the decree passed in favour of the reepondents by which the sale eed dated 7/12/90 executed by them in favour of the appeiiant has been declared void and ineffective. it is not in dispute that the deed in questtcn was executed by plaintiffs/respondents with respect to the suit land w ich was. aliotted to them on tease for a period of 1O years oommenci from 1978 to 1988 and a3 per the , the aiiottee was not entitied to transfer condition No.7 of the tease dee n alienate or otherwise dispose of he same to another person Learned trial Coutt decreed the suit in the folio ing terms:- (i)- sale deed dated /12/90 was declared void and ineffective. (ii)~ Decree for perpetu l injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs restraini g the defendant from interfering with the user in any manner However, by impugned judgmen teamed District Judge has modified the decree to the extent that the sale deed in question has been declared void and ineffective and decree of per etual injunction has been set aside/r/ / / XI-HC-78 WW,®?hwrgr Wm $A¢H ,W ,1.— ?..Z.% 1% 200 WW (W) WWW WWW mmmm WW WW ¥ agwm Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality so far as the competence of the plaintiffs in transferring the land in coritravention of the sale deed advanced by him was that of ille: course of argument learned coun: the appellant is in possession oft and the first appeltate Court has re & 12 ofthe impugned judgment. suit of the plaintiffs after consids record. ln View of above, this Co judgment and decree has been 1: .appreitiation of the evidence and r ln the result there is no sut question of taw is involved for its is liable to be dismissed and it is d \ Learned counsel for the a; plaintiffs/respondents that the against the tote! consideration of the Court below did not direct t obtained by them and therefore t consideration of this appeab consideration amounts to mega! enrichment of the respondents? ‘Whether non refund of apeiiant submits that it is admitted by the ‘eceived consideration of Rs. 3,000!- Rs. 4,0QO/— and even after this admission 1e plaintiffs to refund the consideration he substantial question of law arises for l have heard learned counsel for the appellant. is concerned and the oniy argument tal enrichment of the plaintiff. During the tel for the appellants submits that in fact 1e suit property from the date of transfer acorded this finding in paragraphs 10, 11 Thus the Court below has decreed the ring the over all evidence available on trt is of the opinion that the impugned assed by the first appellate Couit after 1aterial available on record. :stance in the appeat and no substantial adjudication and accordingly this appeal smissed on the admission stage itsetf. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge