^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 232 of 2011 APPBLLANT/ Defendant RESPONDBNT Plaintiff VERSUS Amriflal Gupta aged about 55 years, S/o Hazari Lal Gupta, R/o Village Puta, P.S. Patna, TahsU Eiaikunfhpur, Distfc Korea (C.G.). Chan.dra.bhan Singh about 65 years, S/o. Rajbharat Siagh, Occupation Retired Teacher, R/o Village Puta, P.S. Patna, Tahsil Baikuafhpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hoa'ble M».T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-Mr. D.R. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Chandra Kumari Nawrang, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent not noticed. ORAL- JUDGBMENT (Passedon 22/07/2011) 1. By fhis second appeal under Section 100 ofthe Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 11/4/2011 passed by First Additional Distri.et Judge, Mauendragarh at BaUrunthpur, District Koria (C.G.) ia eivU appeal No. 53-A/2010 afiinniug the judginent aad decreeiug fhe suit ffled on behalf of the respondent dated 31/12/2007 ia civU suit No. 49-A/ 1997 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I, Baikunthpur whereby decree for declaration of title, permaaent uijunction and confirmation ofpossessionwas granted iu favour of the respondent. 2. Leamed counsel for fhe appellaat is beard. 3. Copy ofboth fb.e jud'gtnents and decree impugned perused. 4. Copy of bofh the judginents aad decree reveal that on the basis of luu-egistered sale-deed aad 'possession, suit for declaration, pennanent iujunction and conSnnation of possession was filed by respondent against present appellaut iu which appeuaiit.detued the claun of respondent aad has pleaded that lie.,is testamentary successor of deceased Jainuna Prasad who has executed wiU ia favour of the appeUaat in fhe year 1984. As per both the ^£) ^,y judgraeiits aud decree present appellaat has neifher produced original wiU nor proved execution ofwiU by exanuning attesting witness. In absence of aay actionable claun of appellant both fhe Courts below has decreed the suit io. favour of the respondent aad disinissed the appeal. While passtag aforesaid judgiaente and decree bofh fhe Courts below have not coiainitted any iUegality, I do not find aay substautial question of law for decision of second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be dismissed aad is hereby disnussed at fhe stage of adnussion itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. SSiarma Judge -7-