^'^^i^^ ^- 55 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR SECON b APPEAL N0. 13 /2011 APPELLANTS (Defendants) /^^^e^^s-zr 1. AAps:h**®p, son of Joidha -»s Bareth, aged 63 years. 2. Ramlal, son of Joidha Bareth, aged 58 years. ^ <s^^' ^^"^ ..-'^y .^. Both residents of Hardi (Jarwe), ^^ ...:••'"! ^ Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir- ».^:^ ^^"ov ^^ Vs RESPONbENTS (Plaintiffs Champa (<:&) 1. Shivprasad, son of bulari Bareth, resident of Hardi (Jarwe), Tehsil Janjgir, bistt Janjgir-Champa (CG) 2. Chaiti Bai, d/o Firturam Bareth, agedabout 50 years, resident of Tata Nagar. <t>u^-«\* <A' 3. Shivmati, wife of Firturam Bareth, aged about 48 years, resident of Temri (Near Nandghat), Oistrict Durg (CG) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, bistrict Janjgir Champa. civiLsult <s( First appeal valued at ^s SlSO /- <& court fee affixed This appeal is also valued at Rs.QL/^6^ /- <& court fee affixed Rs._35^$_/-. The appeal is within limitatiorL APPEAL UNbER SECTION 100 OF THE CObE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 13/2011 APPBLLANTS Mahettar and another Versus RBSPONDENTS Shivprasad and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer, for the State. ORAL ORDER (15-3-2011) 1. This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-2010 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No. 43-A/2010 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 35-A/2005 was affirmed and the appellant's appeal has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in Brief are that the respondents No. 1 to 3 (henceforth 'the plaintiffs') instituted a suit for declaration and possession ofthe suit property situated at village Hardi comprising One house and land bearing Kharsa No. 125 area 0.73, Kh.No. 131 area 0.58, Kh.No.941 area 0.50, Kh.No. 127 area 0.80, Kh.No. 132 area 0.12 total area 2.73 acres described in the schedule of the plaint. The claim was denied by the appellants herein on the ground that pursuant to prior partition took place between the parties, they are exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and the suit is not maintainable. 3. Three issues were framed. 4. The trial court of appreciation of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made held there was no prior partition between the parties; plaintiffs are entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property and accordingly also its ^^®? ^ ,;^^. l' 1 -<K ~Z:.-1;'J ^-,.-...^' .^' '^-•"- ..^ possession, decreed the suit. The first appellate court after re-appreciating the entire evidence and considering every aspect of the matter affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded concurrently by both the Courts below. 6. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 7. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the araended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question oflaw arises for determination ofthis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 8. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ?/