ssSaSS^ a 1 B y s Appeilants Defendants Respondents Piaintife HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR Second ^ipeal No.231 of 2011 1. Chandramati Wd/o Late Sukhdev D/o Heera Lal Chandra, aged about 85 years, R/o Po^ Jasra, Tahsii Sarangarh, Di^rict.Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Lavkumar S/o Paiuram, aged about 20 years, 3. Paluram S/o Ramanand, aged about 45 years, Both "R/o Kansa, Tahsii, Dabhrs, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). Versus 1. Malti Bai W/o Ramanand D/o Parmanand, aged about 50 yeare, caste-Chandra, R/o village S Post SuWida, Tahsi! Dabhra, District Janjgtr-Champa (C.G.). 2. Pili Bai wd/o Late Ramprasad D/o Heera Lal Chandra, aged about 70 years, R/'o village & Po^ Pharswant, Tahsil Dabhra, Di^rid Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). 3. Noni Bai w/o Natthu D/o Heera Lal Chandra, aged about 65 years, R/o viiiage Chyrtela, P.0. Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Second Appeal under Sedion 10) ofthe CPC) Mr.Vimlesh Bajpai, counsei for the eppeUsnts. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for re^iondent No.4/State. (SB: Hon'ble Mr.T.P. Shanna, J.) oraSER (OR^y-i (1-9-2011) 1. By this Second Appeai under Sectton 100 of the Code of Civii Procedure, the appeilants have chalienged the iegatity & propriety ofthe judgment &'decree dated 25.1.2011 passed by e Additionai Di^ricl Judge, Sakti in Civil Appeal No.14A/2007, reversing the judgment and decree of deereeing-counter-ciaim filed by the present appeliants and /--»s^ '^ "V. 1 '». ''!&. J' ^ ,£y 'W'^-y ^E'~:,"-S:r'-- ^- 3. 5. 6. decreeing the suit that respondents No.1 to 3 are co-ownere of the property and partition has not been taken place between the parties. 2. I have heard ieamed counsei for the appeilants, f»ru^dthe judgment & decree impugned, judgment & decree ofthe trial Court and nscords o fhe Courts beiow. As per ciaim of respondents No.1 to 3, the property was origtnaliy owned by Heeraiai. After death of Heeraiai, present appeliant No.1 Chandramati, respondent No.2 Pili Bai, responcient No.3 Noni Bai and one Parmanand succeeded the property. After death crf Parmsnand his soie successor daughter Maiti Bai/respondent No.1 has succeeded the property of Parmanand. As per cialm of the ptaintiffs/raspondents No.1 to 3, partition has not been taken [rface between the parties, but the present appeliant No.1 has soid some portion of the prbperty to appellant No.2. Present appellant No.1 has denied the altegation made in the piaint and has ^ecificaiiy pieaded that partition took piace between the parties and she has sold her share. On the basls of evidence ihe Court beiow has dismissed the sutt and decreed counter- ciaim of the appeiiants. Thereafter the appeiiate Court has dismtssed counter-daim and decreed the suit fited on behaif of frie re^)ondents No.1to3. Evidence adduced on behalf of the parties reveais thai there is no definite partition and aiiotment of share, Evidence of the witnesses reveals that there was some famiiy arrangement, but no effective partition has been taken piace between the parties, share was not allotted to any ofthe party and name has not besn mutated on the basis of any partition. In these circumsiances, by dismisang the counter-c!aim and allowing the <!— . - , suit, the iower appeilate Court has not commUed any illegaiity. do not find any substance in the appeai invoiving substantlai question of iaw. The appeai is liabie to be dismissed and 'rt is hereby dismiss%i at the motion stage itself. However, in the iight of appeliate decree, the appeilant No.1 is at iiberty to file appiication for partition before the revenue officer or competent forum fbr aitotment of^tets to her which &he has sold to appeilgnt No.2. No order as to co^s. Sd/- T.P. Sfaarma Judee "T