my < I x i : k @ H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ; l Smqle Bench Hon ble Shrl Dlllp Raosaheb Deshmukh J Second Amal No 259 of 2007 _ Devnath S/o jlyar Caste— Rajwar aged about 61 years R/o Village Kunjnagar Tsil Surajur, Distt. Surguja (CG) rKansho Prasad, S/o Jagarnath, Caste-Rajwar, aged’ about5 46 years’ ’ ‘ Glrwar Prasad S/o Jagarnath Caste Rajwar aged about 3 years Jagarnath, S/o Ujiyar, Caste- Rajwafr, aged about 65 years Respondents 1 to 3 R/o Village Kunjnagar TahSIl Surajpur Dlstt Surguja (CG) State of Chhattisgaih, 7th‘rough . Collector‘ Surguja Distt. Surguja (CG) Second AQQeal under Seotion 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, scond e and germanent q . Appellant Plaintiff veTSUS 1.v Respondent Aggeal v'alued at Rs._600/— for declaration, partition iniunction and court fees .of Rs.52/— is bein affixed Present h S B t : Srl M P hatla counselforthe appelian ' Shrl Akhll Agrawal PL for State/respondent No 4; RAL ORDER Passed on 16th July, 2007) Heard on LA. No.2. for taking document on record. Considered and allowed. Document is taken on record. Also heard on admission in this appeal the Judgment and decree dated 23 3 2007 passed by he ll"d Additional DistrictJudge (FTC) Surajpur Dlstt Surguja (CG) In crvrl l !” n U ah p s Defendants 8 O ( P N " appeal No3A/2006 Is under challenge wr+ereby the lower‘appellate Court has affirmed the Judgment and decree dated 31 12 2005 passed In ‘ q . CIVII sult No 142 A/2004 by the CIVII Judge Class i Surajpur dismissmg' ' ‘ " l the plalntlff’s su1t ‘ , ‘ 1 7‘ ‘5.- The appellant/plaintiff could succeed In éhe swt only on of V p 2,:igffollowmg facts- , ' v u W p - ‘ . Al' "that the sale deed datecl 1610 1992 ‘ '7 (Ex D 5) executed by Blrso Bal m 1 favour of Jagannath was v0Id bemg Without conSIderatlon z - V ;-' _ B/ that the appellant/plaintiff was the adopted son of late Badalk 6.‘ Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent fmdlng of fact, that the plaintiff has mlserably failed to prove that the sale deed executed ' by Brrso Bar In favour of Jagannath on 16 1O 1992 was wrthout I consrderatron So far as the second ground Is concerned the counsel for/w = f the appellant before the lower appellate Court hadvery frankly conceded ’V I ' that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establlsh that he was the adopted ’ son of late Badalk g / ,_ 7.. In this vrew of the matter l am of the‘oOnsidered oplmon that on both the Issues the flndlng of fact recorded by both the Courts below Is Impeccable and no substantial question of Iaw arises for determination In this appeal , \ '8. The appeal being dev0Id of any merit Is dismissed at the stage of } .admIsSIon There shall be no order as to costs V V 9. ln View of the above IA No 1 appllcatlon for grant of temporary " ‘ ' _ ‘ D temporary , I Injunctlon/Interlm rellef stands dlsposed of :5 }‘ ' Sd/- I ‘ l Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh