® IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS^R!? AT BILASPUR (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL N0. ^^ 72005. APPELLANT. /(Plaintiff) ^/M.A. F^heem S/o Late Shri M.A. AJLeem^ aged about 46 years,Occupation Jurnlist, r$sident of Salhevapara D]b.^matari Tahsil & Dist. Dhamatari (C.Gr.) . VERSUS BESPONDENTS 1. :De£endants)\'^ '""""'^ ..^•vy Ram Prakash S/o Shri Madan l4al Agrawal, aged about 45 years, Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Madan Lal Agrawal, aged about 30 years, both resident of ...^'.^'V Sihawa Road, Dhamatari ^"^\/ Tahsil & Dist. Dhamatari ^ ..^ %^y (C'G-) ^" ^ SECOND APPE2UL U/ S 100 OF CIVIL PROCUDURE CODE. -_.-^___ •^n XI-HC-22 yf^nw f^WW^T SPIWflftff ^o^ NIHt1!! »HI<n ;;jTPTT^PT, ^Tf1^4l<o, RldWy 311^1 M5(<t» ^ 5-A-^' 2-fO/o.^ ^ 200 0 t^s' ^n^T^WStKW^T ankl sutt rts. 17.06.2005 Shri RS Patel, counse| Heard on admission Appellant filed a 9round th<rt on 06.04.1994J agre^ment to poy r®nt @ tiiereafter respondents by fencing wire and are compiy wi1+i the conditions o( Respondents refuted pteaded that respondent M^ year 1984 on rent from 5oi| pos^^ssion of it. The land already be&n sold to appeltcuit. Learned lower Courtl that no agreement on 06.04 are not tenants of the suitl r&spond&nts and th& r&n^ further been held Th^ pwnership over the suit <l»l<<T^<(lt*lw^'^?te^^R:S1R: ^^KlNW^T [forlheoppellant. 1 on M.(C.)P.No.635/2005 for stay. for eviction cmd compensation on 1+ie respondent No.2 executed a compromise (^s»100/-per month for tha land in dispute, conjstructed Ihree rooms and fenced the areo con^inuing ih possession thereof, but did not ofthe agreement, the oiverments mcKJle by the <ippellant and •l took possession of the said bnd in the |tii Eastern Raitway amd since tiien he is in fa^earing asra No.254 area 0.22 acres has varpous purchas&rs by 1+ie f<s1+ier of the aft&r due appreciation of evidence, held .04.1994 had been executed omd respondents land. The sujt lcxnd b in possession of the is bfiing paid to th& ftailways. It is »T The appellant failed To prove his \^pd. TTne First Appellate Court/bhamtari XI-HC-22 ^^ ^ii^m^'^ ^wi, ftwwy ^PIWJ'W^iW ••»»^f*6$^$<?^»^8<S«$¥'<*88%S»SS%^^«^« ^§§8$?^^«$9^^<s?e8e%^%^«^?^^s ^ST^T ^RNW^T iR'RTSF<:rfN ^NSSI^' padma ^k, -^ < ^^ ?^' y' ^r^aw^^ vide impugned judgment No.196/2002, after due findings of lower Court ond From the perusal ofj concurrent findings of both quisstion of law involves in be dismissed and is accor In the li9ht of the No.1160/2005 stand dispose^ t^is rdingly ^N^N'W^^'I^- <N^(I '^^^W^T dated 22.01.2004 in Civil Appeal a^predation of evidence fortifted the djsmissed the appeal. the records of Court-s below and the the Cour^s, in my opinion, no substantial t^is casse, ther&foro, the app<eal is liabb to dismissed in limine. order, M.(C.)P.No.635/2005 and IA lof. at>ove Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge