^v\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR S.A. No.443/2005 Singie Bench: Hon'bie Shri DiSip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ARpeILants PSaintiffs Respondents Defendants Budhram s/o Late Shri Chaitram, aged about 53 years, Agricuiturist, R/o Viilage Sankra, R.!. Circie Dharsiwa, Tahsil & District Raipur, C.G. Budharwa s/o Late Shri Chaitram, aged about 42 years, Agriculturist, R/o Viilage Sankra, R.l. Circle Dharsiwa, Tahsil & District Raipur C.G. Smt. Shyama bai w/o iate Shri Chaitram aged about 71 years, R/o viilage Sankra, P.S. Dharsiwa, TahsiJ & District. Raipur C.G. Versus. Smt. Jugabai daughter of Late Shri Jaitram and W/o Late Shri MaharajS Satnami, R/o Santoshi Nagar, Raipur Chhattlsgarh. State of Chhattisgarh through ColSector,Raipur,C.G.) ^ Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. Present:- Shri Manoj Kumar Dube, counsel for the appeilants/plaintiffs. Shri Akhil Agrawai, PL for the State/respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14th June, 2007) ^ Heard on admission. (2) Civil Suit No.lO-A/2001 fiied by the plaintiffs / appeilants for deciaration of ^ share in the suit lands was dismissed by 10th Civil Judge Class-11, Ralpur vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.2003. Aggrieved by the dismissai, the piaintiffs/appejjants preferred the first appeai (Civil Appeal No. 40-A of 2003) which was aiso dismissed vide Judgment and decree 4 Y ^ dated 29.07.2005 by 5th Addl. District Judge, Raipur. Hence, this Second Appeal by the appeiiants/plaintiffs. (3) There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have failed to establish execution of will Ex.P.1 dated 28.11.2000 by Ganesh Ram in favour of the appeiiants/plaintiffs No.2 & 3. Both the Courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding that the piaintiffs/appeilants have also failed to establish that possession of the suit iands was delivered to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3. In First Appeal, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the defendant No.1 is the sole heir of Jaitram has aiso been upheid. In this manner, both the Courts below have on appreciation of evidence orai as well documentary recorded concurrent findings offact againstthe appellants/plaintiffs. (4) I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of iaw io invoived in this appeai which is dismsssed at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. M.C.P.No.1436/2005 for stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge '%I<3WC