^ (^' BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^? 'ggl Second Appeal No. <$ ^ Of 2005. APPELLANT &LAINTIFF (,/^. \^M. €^/ v^. /,,.<'y y. y \ / .w <y ^ Bansi Lal,son ofBodhiram Kenwat, aged about 52 years, Occupation agriculturist, resident ofVillage Hardi, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Present resident ofVillage Mekri, Tah. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) VER S U S RESPONDENT 7'DEFENDENTS ^/.« \^_^ ^<f^ ^iy . Balodhiya, son ofBadku, aged 39years Caste Kenwat, Occupation agriculturist, 2. Ramkishun alias Muni Baba, son of /r Jahani Marar,aged about 51 years, Both resident ofVillage Hardi, Tahsil Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.), k Tijmati alias Tij Bai, daughter of Dhansingh Kenwat, aged 67 years, resident of Village Chatipali, P.0. and P.S. Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), y State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), APPEAL UNDER SECTION lOQ OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (CIaim in appeal valued at Rs. 1250 and c.fpaidatRs. 135 only) Contd...2.. 'c^.^^- s^'» Rairtlff OF rf Lai Vs Appeiiant by Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sr.Advocate. -^» JUDOEMENT on 16 Heard on The appellant preferred thjs appeal as he is a.ggrieved by the judgment and 11.10.2004 by the first Addl. District Judge, In Civjj No. 21-A^2004 out of the judgment and 22.04.2004 in Civij Sult No. 2o-A/'2001 by Cjvii Judge. Ciass-ii, Baiouda and both the Courts beiow the suit ofthe piaintiff for injunction arsd consoquentiy possession ww the. suit house. (Parties hereinafter shail be referred to as per their description in the triai court). The of th© the Sria! that the sult is the Is in the !and of Hardi. At the has !eft the and is at vijlage Mekri, Tehsii- Pamgarh and taking advantage of his absence, the respondents have encroached over the suit houso by breaking open t'he lock, The piaintifr a notice 10.12,1996 to the to the ^uit and therefor©the suit has i3n th©jrreply, d©f@na3antsNo. 1 to 3 ihas submitted that th©reis no pro|3erty of the plaintif?^ situated in the viilage Hardi and the suit property was the ancestral property of No.3 and the by him to No.2 on ~mm -2.- 17.01.1989 and the hou^Q was purcha^ed by dorendant No.1 from dofendant No.3 on 21.08.1995 and they are in possession since then. The house in questlon constructed by the father ofthe defendant NoJ and afterthe of his father, he is in and th©plamtiff has no righ.t, tlttQ or possessjo" th® and are not The triai Court dJBmlssed the suit of the plaintifr on the ground that on ihe admission of the piaintiff the defendants • are in of the suit property, the has to that the property in was by the iock has not filed any to tnat ne js the of the suit or ne In of the suit propesly prior to 1996 and oniy on th@ of the pieadlng^ and orai evidence, it can not be said that the pla.intiffwas in possession before 1996. The fact that no report lodged by the piaintiff when the encroached upon hls by breakJng tha jock, has as a for oot the of the and accordingly, the triai Court a finding that the plaintiff has to that he Is the and of the suit property and accordingiy, it has further that he is not for perpetuai injunction as prayed, !n the first the piajntlff filed sn appiicatjon undor Order41 27 of the C.P.C. fdr to fi!e gift and voter !ist. However, the- by the first Court on the ground that for the is not. and it Is not by an affidavlt and further that in tho gift the d©scriptlonof property is not mentioned a.nd it Js aiso not mentionecJ as to whieh place the property is situated. Therefor-e, on the above- ground^, application pre-ferred ynder Order 41 Rute 27 ofthe C-.P.C-. was rejected. first Court on the of the of the oral and documentary evidence on record has arrived to the conciusiQn that the plaintifr has to prove his ownership and posses^ion over the sujt property and as such he is not for a of possesslon or perpetuai Injynction andaccordingly, the suit confirniing the .judgement and by the triai Courl , o? -<2< II rnw" In this appQal, ioarned coun^ei.for th@ appdianupiaintifr has also fii^d an appiioation under Order 41 Rue 27 ofthe C,P,C, and a^ for permbsion to file the documents being the voter iist of Gram Panchayat of Village Hardi for the 1983 in whlch the of piaiotlff !al at S!.No.96 for the 2003-04 and 2004-05 to However, counsel for the is not to as to hov»' are for of the the of the and of law as in A to E in Nu. 3. 1 haye jgamed counsej for the appoljanyplsjntjff, through tho judgment and the on In the above oiroumBtanoea, the appi'Joation preferred under Order 41 R.uie 27 of C.P.C, b to be di^mte^ed because forthe appeliant/ptaintlff b not able to shov/ a-s to how documents are for the Accor-dingiy. the js set Considering the and ciroum^tances, 1 ani of the opinion that the judgement and decree by both the Courts beiow is on and on and is a concurrent of th© has tu his or the suit to 1 and i du not . find any of iaw irwoived in this app©alfor its adjudication. Accordingiy, th© desarves to be dtemis^ed and it is dl^miB^ed, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge v^^: