*•-. //' S'nflfefisncft 3N THB HIGH GOURT OP JUOieATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G'. } Second Appeal Ko."_^_[0_/2004 APPELLANT /PLAINTICT RESpONBENTS XES'ENB&NTS" •s^ii^ ^A^' /'fw.-';1' ^^s?" ^y ^^ ^•' ^p-' '~^/~. <^ y" ^ :,i Smt. Jhamin-Bai'W/o Kisun Sahu, agad 42 years, resident o£ vlllaga ehilfi and Amal-Ld.ih, Ct.tltivator, Tah. Saja, Distt. Ourg (C.G.) Ve r su s :/1. Smt. Maina Bai wldow o£ Ramdayal Sahu, aged 50 years, cuitivator, R/o village Ghilfi, Tahsil Saja.l Oistt. Burg (C.Q.5- 2, Setah sal widow of Adhin Sahu, age<3 70 yeaFa, R/o village ehilfi., '^ ;l,::^^Tab.^Saya,, •Bistt. -Qurg (C.G.). :i3^^8e-wajsam.-S/<a SafchFa.m Sahu, aged 35 yaaras ealtivator, R/o village Ghl3.fi, Tah.Saja,.I>istt. Burg (Cs) 4.; Earae S/o Ramgayal Sabu, aged 30 years, cultivator, ft/o viiiage ehilfi,, Tah. Saja, •Distt.Qurg (CS) 5. Thanu S/o Bhukbu Sahu , aged 70 yrs eultivator. R/6 vil.lage Ghilfi, Tsh. Saja. Dis-lit. Du.cg (C.S. ) 6y-Sudarshan S/o Harde Sahu, aged 35 / ; ' ! years, culfc.ivat&r, R/o vil.l.age Chllfi,-Tah.saja, Oistt. Durg (GS) 7.;Khorteahara S/o USeram Satai, aga "70 yea&s, cultivator. R/p •V-.lltage ; • ehllf'i, Tah., 'aaja.,' I>j.,sfct.^':l|a,gs:'i',||^') 8, ;jg&' 'Bhagawani S/6 •:QhaBaF;ain'ss%fi^^!|^||^ ^stQYyaaxa, 'cult tivatoF.E^'o^Ss/'BI^^^B' ].:': Gh.U.S'i, ^an.Saja^fDis'ti?2.!»i^|:^^|gS ^••H:.':-'£S:VSSSSSCS& i-:],.^.,.<j?|on!b<3g|^^g5|gBi k 8 B / /.,e. 1E D, E/. 9. ^. 10.7 11.7 12, 13 .A B. Ofe &» ''{.'©K'fe : ? ^s^^,,.,. ^..' ."•?.- .^"'^,^';' Bodhanram S/o Ghanaram, aged 45 years R/o village Chilfi, Tah.Saja Distt. "Bacg (C.Q<«)...-^ , Dharam S/o GhanaEam, aged45:years, . sulfei'vator,, R/o village ehilf.i.Tah. Saja,;"0is1:'fc.;' airg (C.O. ) presently residing a-t Nagpur, Tab. & Qistrict Nagpur. -•'aharm.tn Baji.agi/o not known, aged 35 ^•jBars, Presently reaiding at; Saral, " Maaawari Nag'pur , Tah. & Distt.Nagpur. AmeriKa aai Vt/o not known, aged 30 '' , q> ' ;~ :<.' years, pr's.sent R/o Mata Mini Nagar, Nagpur, Tah. & Distt. Nagpur. .Bfaagawani .S/b:Ghanaram Sahu, age 45 .| .yeaFs, eult.ivatoc R/o viltage Chilfi, ' !a«i:::. - -.;:r'.'; ' : : TahsJ.l '•Saja, Distt. ^Durg (O.G.). Dharam S/o GhanaramSahu, aged 3o yrs cultivator, S/o vlllage ehilfJ., Tah. Saja.-Olstt. Surg (C.G,). Bodhan S/o Ghanaram Sahu, agea 28 yrs aultivator, R/o village ehilfi, Tah. Saja. Bistt. Durg (G.G.). •Sfea.te pS.Maabya pradssh (now G.G.) Through! Ctolleetor, IXirg, Distt.Darg .Kolhuram S/o Chaitaram, aged 40 years B/o viilage Chilfi, Tah. Saja, Bast-fc. Durg (G.G.). Mangat-.L Sa.i'W/o Bhlfehu, aged :3S 'years^ R/c^ vi.tlage. Karali.i.,[ Tah.Sa Ja .:-Sistt...I3u]!-g.'(e.-Q.)'. . ' ,j: ::':,': ^.liangnet.iM.S/e •eaiaitu, ,Sa.ha.,'|.ia^aj;3|g|'^e!aFi 'y8/?y^gia^L£l, •Tah.S^ja,!'S3;|§;8|g3ifir'g|: :(^<3 .;. ,...eent:j^.:.!gga.!3 E3 m fK' IK3 IK'I "?^^ |i El M •B K9 Bia ^S^s! (&i'^s\ SSS8 Ks^Stl St'f&t ~^S-^- y'^^^^Ss'^^^^i^^^^ 1JB ^ J£ 3 D. ffogs Ba.t.'.-Vt/o Radhe Sahu, aged28 years, R/o village Karamtara, Tah. Saja, Qistt. Qurg (G.G.). !" ^ I'lElCRANaJM OF.SECOND APPEAL UNDER SEGTXON TOO C.P.-e. &^ ^4B m HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREAT BILASPUR(C.G) 2-1 & SECOND APPBAL No. OF 2004 Sm.t. Jhanun Bai Vs. Suit. Maina Bai aud 12 others ORDER Post for 7^121.2004 Sd/- , y'1'' iSKussiarSinha \ Judge I"'1 i1l!li": vw^ ^^.^ ^ 'v' f- \ HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G) SECOND APPEAL No. 210/2004 1 Smt. Jhamin Bai Vs. Smt. Mama Bai aad 12 others SIui N. S. Dhurendhar, Couusel for theappeUant Sunil Kumar Sinha, J» JUDGMENT (ly-. 12.2004) Heard on the question ofadinission. (2) Ttus appeal has been filed agaiast the judgiuent aad decree dated 30.01.2004 passedm.Civil Appeal No.60-A of 2002 by fhe Second Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Beiiietara, Distt. Dui^ arisiag out of Judgment aud decree dated 26.8.1994 passed in CivU Suit No.67-A of 1990 by fhe First CivilJudge, Class-II, Beinetara, Distt. Diu-g (C.G). (3) The plaintifFfiled a suit for declaration fhat she along-wifh her sister (defendant no. l) be d'eclared as fhe joint owners o£ the su,Bt properly having Va share of each in it She also prayed for a decree of possesgion aiid permanent injuliction agauist defendants no.8 toll. The plaiut aBegations are that fhesuit propertie? were self acquired properdes of her fafher naniely Adhindas. After Iiis deatli, fhe properties were succeeded by bis two daughters, plaiutiff and defendaut no.l axid his wife Setaa Bai, defendaat no.2. Itwas also pleaded that Setan. Bal had surrendered her r^hts in. favour of fhese two daughters aad was haviag no right or uiterest iu the suit properties. Thereafter, the plauitifFaad defendaatno. l are oalythe joiat owners of fhese properties. She inade certaui aUegations agauist defeadants no.8 to 11 aud ultimately prayed for fhe aforesaid reUefs clauned by her. (4) Defendaats no.l to 7 atid 9 & 13 filed fheir written statement denyiag the contentions ofthe plamtiff, They denied about suirender ofany such right by defendaut no.2 ia. favour of plaiatiEE'and defendant no.l. They also pleaded that the plaiatifF, defendaat no. l & defendaat no. 2 are fheco-owners of the property haviagjouit possessioii over the sam.e. They also pleaded fhat fhere was no pardtion in the faiiuly aiid tfae propertybelongs to aU of ftiein (PlaixitifF aud defendants no. 1 &2). , (5) The learaed trial Judge fi-amed various issues in this case and after recordiag fhe evidence of parties disnussed fhe suit boldiag that the plauitiff' and defendant no.l are not the absolute owners of the suit properties aad fhe reliefs claitued by the plaiQtiffi cannot be graated to her. Almost aU tfae issues fiiained by 13ie tnal Court were deGided against tKe plauitiff. (6) Against tBe afereSaid jud^nieiit and decree passed by ihe trial Court tfae platetiff : d aa'*appeal befere fhe lower appellate Gourt inwb&li the^lower appeUate Court dismissed her appeal aiKl coiifiTlned'tliejudgmeiitand (iecree passed by tlle trial Court. T(»e lowerappellate &yurt vide pa^ ^^^s^.. -A- 7^ .ff~ \ judgment frained 5 points for corisideration aad repUed all ftiese points agauist fhe plauitiff cQnfirmiag fhe findiags of fhe trial CoT.irt, holdiag fhat fhe defendao.t no.2 has never surTendered her rights in relatioh to fhe suit properties aud the trial Court has righUy held fhat fhe plamtiff aad defendaat no. 1 or the plaiutiff alone was not fhe absolute owner of the property. Agauist flie aforesaid judgiaeitt and decree passed by fhe lower appeUate Court, fhe plaintifFhas preferred fhis appeal u/ s 100 of C.P.C. In fhis way, fhe plaiatiff has lost w. bofh the courts. (7) Leamed coun.sd for the appellant/plaiattff submits that the trial Court as weU as the First AppeUate Court had given wrong fiiidiag that tfae properties ia question were not fhe properties of ownership and possession of plnmtiff and defendaat no.l, aad it has also been wrongly recorded fhat defendaat ao.2 has not surrendered lier r^ht in her husbaad's property. (8) I have gone through ffie recdrds ofthe Courts below aiid have also perused ttie judgiaent aad decree passed by •Bieia. The findiag m. relation to sun-ender of right by defendant no.2 ia favour of plaintiff and flie defendant no. 1 is a finding of fa.et which has been arrived at by fhe two courts below after coinplete scrutiny of evidence. No docum.entaiy evidence ia relation to surrender of r^ht has beeri adduced by the p^ixitiff and ia the easiest iiiaaner it caa be saul that in. ftie husband's property, fhe wife and two daugliters will have fheir own share. The first appeUate Court has also consideFed fhe matter at lliti; i ;'.;.1-' :. ! w:.' ^k- tength aad has also recorded the same findiag which the trial Court has recorded ia this regard. If the aforesaid fmdiags of fhe Courts below are upheld, the resiilt would be ttiat fhe plaiatiff and defendant no. 1 alone would not be the owners of the suit property leaving fhe iuterest ofdefendaat no.2. Since fhe two Courts below have concT.irrently recorded.fhe aforesaid fiiidings and I do not find aay perversily ia the same, the concurrent findiags recorded by the two Courts below are not disturbed iu fhe second appeal. (9) After coiiunencement of the am.endnient ia ftie Code of Civil Procedure in the year 1976, this Court is haviag linuted jurisdiction to entertaia the second appeal, which can oiily be entertauied ifany substaiitial question of law is involved ia the inatter. Please refer to fhe decision of Supreme Court reported in {WOO) 3 SCC 708 tRoop Simih IDead) thrmwh-&J?s -Vs- RiifnStngh /DecuO tStraiujh LRs) in'which it has been laid dowa that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil PTocedure, the jurisdiction of the Court to eiitertam a second 'appeal is conjBned oiily to such appeals which iavolve a substaiitial question of law and it does not confer any jurisdiction on fhe High Court to iaterfere wifh fhe pure questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 100 C.P.C. It has been said by the Apex Court that the existence of substantial question of law is fhe sine gua non for fhe exercise.,of jurisdiction uader the amended provisions of Sectlon 100 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure aad unless such questions are involved, the appeals are not to be entertained [Flease see Thiafitirwian cmAothers ^&.^^^^^^t^&^^lfe^^^ -r- Vs. Sri VenujsotWlasweww B. Koil and others reported ia f2004) 5 SCC 762). (10) In view of fhe decisions pf fhe Apex Court referred to above, fhe appeal would only be luauitaiiiable if such a situation arises. Siace no substantial questions of law are involved in this case and tiie concurrent fiitdings ia relation to above questions of facts have been. recorded by fhe two Courts below, fhis Court finds no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findiags aad fhis appeal filed by the plauitiff u/s 100 of ftie Code of Civfl Procedure has no luerits. Hence fhe same is disinissed at fhe adnussion stage itself. Noorderas to costs. i,:, Sd/- , " 1 Sunsi Kuaiar Sin'ha \ Judse ^^ ^':^ llliillil