IEi'ltE.!i» L^ TSSGA! Single Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. :FEh 10. 1. 2. 3. Takeshwar Rarn S/o Ram Garib, Aged about 59 years, Occupation- Agncuiture. Dhan Sai S/o Laiman, Aged about 49 years, Occupation-Agricuiture. Sant Kumar S/o Ram Autar, Aged about 29 years No. 1 and 3 - residents of Viltage- Tengani and No. 2 Resident of ?ii!age-Girjapur, all three of Tahsi! - Baikunthpur, District - Korea Heera Ram S/o Indrarnan Ram, Aged about-61 years, Occupation-Agricufture, Resident of Village-Girjapur, Tahsil- Saikunthpu.r, Dtett.-Korea (C.G.) State of Chhattlsgarh, Through: Cotlector, Korea, H.Q. taikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Second ApReai UnderSectlon 100 ofthe Code o'FCivi! 'resent:- Shri Mahendra Dubey, counsel for the appeliants. Shri Akhil Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 2 o i071 2. The appeilants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 36-A/200S by the District Judge, Korea, (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh whereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by Civi! Judge, Class-i, Baikunthpur in Clvii Suit No. 20-A./1997, the appeai was dismissed. Kvr ^\ 3. 3. Lssrned counsel for the appsiiants did not dispute the fact that sppeilant No. 1 and 3 did not entsr the witnsss box In the Triat Court. 4. Soth the Courts bsjow on appreciaiion of evidencs have recorded a finding of fact that Hsera Ram - respondent/piaintiff herein was the brother ofthe deceased Tiiak Ram who dled issue!ess ana therefore, succeed to the suit property. On this basis, both the Courts betow he.ld that mutation of the name of respondent/plaintjff over the suit ,'and by the Revenue Authorities was proper and thaf the saje dsed of the suit !and executed by Takeshwar Ram- appe.'lant/defsndant No.1 in favour of Dhan Sai and Santkumar- appellante/defendants No-2 and 3 was void. Learned counsel for the appeliants was unable to show that the findj.ng recorded by both the Courts be!ow v/as Dsrverse. 5. Since the purs findlng of fact recorded by both th@ Courts beiov/ is based on appreciation of evidence, no substantial question of law arises in thls appeal, which is dismisssd at the stage of admission. S. Consequently, t.A. No. 1 , under Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. aiso stands dismissed. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge