^ c .^ ^ •y^i BEFORETHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR y SECQND APPEAL N0. • u<^ /2008 9sm APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS 1^' Hulas son of Kisria alias Krishna ' Ram caste Kanwar, aged about 39 years, ^\<?v--;k:iL^T ...../?i%^7 ^ TA.i" ""..^ ^' ..•.l^'s^ ^L^^^^^"' ^ w " ^3^^ about 34 years, Sukhnandan, son of Kisna alias Krioshna Ram Caste Kanwar, aged }} Both are resident ^ of village Sambalpur, P.S. Jainagar, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^l. Mukund son of Nanka caste DEFENDANTS Kanwar, aged about 49 years. 1 ® { S.B^i^hik ) ^ i,iy"(z:^j 'v'~^^y ^^" ^ ufc^ L Govind son of . Nanka caste U Kanwar^ aged about 35 years, Both are resident of village Jainagar, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) 3,. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, District Sarguja (C.G.) SECONDAPPEAL U/S. 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellants Respondents Second Appeal No.400 of 2008 Hulas and another versus Mukund and others Present: Shri A.N.Bhakta, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.K.Prasad, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure ORDER (Passed on 11th August, 2010) Plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by the Courts below. The claim of the plaintiffs was based on the pleadings that in relation to the suit property situated at Village Sambalpur the ancestor of the defendants, namely, Nanka had executed a deed of relinquishment after accepting a sum of Rs.13,000/- by stating that after his death his legal heirs would have no right on the property situated at Village Sambalpur. Admittedly, there was a partition between the brothers and it appears that the plaintiffs asserted their exclusive right over the property situated at Village Sambalpur on the ground that since the said Nanka had executed a note vide Ex. P-6 to relinquish his right, they are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction because defendants No.1 and 2, who are sons of Nanka, are asserting their right over the land and are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs. ^ ^,-?-^^^^ ^^r^ ?y':^ i L I ,i ^..^•y ^^^^^,^:'r 3^- 2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit after finding that Ex.P-6 is a document relinquishing right over immovable property for value more than Rs.100/-, which is compulsory to get registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, however, in the absence of the document having been registered, the same does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiffs on the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the partition between Nanka and his brothers was not equal and that if the plaintiffs' case is not believed, there would be disparity in the area following in the respective shares of the brothers, however, on perusal of the plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs have not claimed any decree for partition on the ground that the share between Nanka and his brothers were unequal. It is settled law that party to the suit cannot be permitted to make out and bring a new case at the stage of second appeal, moreover, when, in the suit itself any relief to the above extent has not been claimed. 4. There is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal