HiGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS DlBirRNDANTS RE8PONDENTS DEFENDANTS SECOND APPEALNO. 389 OF 2010 1. 2. 3. Gariba S/o Ankalu Ram Sahu, aysd about 80 years. VERSUS 2. 3. 4. Girdhar S/o Gariba Sahu, aged about 40 years occupation ciiltiyation. Harihar S/o Gariba Sahu, aged about 35 years. AU R/o Viilage Bami, Patwari Hallca No. 50, R.I. Circle Sahaspur, Lobara, District Kabiidham (CG). Sitarani S/o Shiv Prasad, aged about 53 years, occupation cultivation, R/o Village Bami, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdtiam (CG). PLAIMT!FF Adhaau, aged 35 years, S/o Bhaawar Siagh, occupation cultivation. Devilal, aged 10 years S/o Gautriha, occupation rul, ruuior, through natural guardiaa Gautriha S/o Sau, ViUage Koylari Talisil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabixdham (C.G,). State of Chhattisgarh, through CoUector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG). MBMORANDUM OF SECOND APPBAL UNDER SECTION 100 OP THB CTVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present -: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. None for the respondents No. 2 8s 3, /'' JUDGBMEBT (Passedoa 09/12/2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of fhe CivU Procedure Code,.1908 appeUants have challenged the legatity and propriely of the judgment aad decree dated 22/11/2010 passed by District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. in civU appeal No. 08A/2010 reversing fhe judgment and decree dated 19/2/2010 passed by Civil Judge Class-2 Kawardha m civil suit No. 47A/2009 whereby Civfl Judge Class-2 Kawardha has dismissed the suit filed on behatfoffhe " respondent No.l Sitaram for declaration of l/3rd share by allowiae •^- appeal Lower AppeUate Court has decreed fhe suit in favour of fhe respondent No. 1 to fhe extent of l/3td share aud has also declared fhat appeUants No. 2 & 3 arc also entitled for l/3Td share. 2. As per pleadiag aud undisputed facts of the case suit property was owned by Indrotiubai ruofher of appeUants No. 2 & 3 and respondent No. 1, after her deafh respondent No. 1 has filed civU suit for declaiation of his l/3rd share. ]3resent appellants had deiiied fheir claiin aad has claimed fhat appeUant No. 1 is a husband ofdeceased Indrotinbai, appeUaats No. 2 & 3 and respondent No. 1 are sons of Indrotuibai. 3. Both the parties led evidence. On the basis of evidence led by fhe parties Lower Appellate Court arrived at a findiag fhat during substance of niarriage of appeUant No. 1 with anofher wonian appellaat No. 1 has soleinnized inarriage wifh Indrotinbai therefore appellaat No. 1 was not legaUy wedded husband of the Indrotinbai but appeUants No. 2 & 3 respondent No. 1 are sons of Indrotinbai aad has declared fheir share. In fhe l^ht of Section 60 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was applicable to ftie parties learaed District Judge has not conunitted auy iUegality by declaring share of appellants No. 2, 3 aad respondent No. 1 aud not declaring share of appeUaat No. 1. On close scrutiny of fhe records, I do not find any substaace aad substantial question of law in fbe present second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is devoid of merits, sarae is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disaiissed at th.e stage of admission. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge