• 'ggBS ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.357 of 2005 Appeilants Defendants 1. 2. Triloki, agedabout 38 years, S/o. Shri Gendram Rathore, Triyugi, aged about 36 years, 3/o. Gendram Rathore, 3. Omprakash Rathore, aged about 35 years, S/o. Shri Gendram Rathore, ; 4. Bharat, aged about 30 yeare, S/o. Gendram Rathore, 5. Pitambar, aged about 37 years, S/o. Ram Prasad Bareth, ' 6. Shivnandan, aged about ^ years, S/o. Mohan Mannewar, Appellants No.1 to 6 all are R/o. Village Amruwa, Tehsil Champa, Distrtet Janjgir-Champa, Chhattlsgarh 7. Smt.BhagmaU, Wd/o. Rambfiarosh. aged about 47 years, 8. ishna Kumar, S/o. Rambharosh, ^edabout27years, 9. Manoj Kumar, S/o. Rambharosh, aged about 22 years, 10. Rohit Kumar, S/o. Rambharosh, aged about 20 years, Appeliants No. 7 to 10 ail are R/o. Village Amruwa, Tahal, Champa, Distrtet Janjgir-Ctampa, Chhattisgarh 11. Dhan Bai, W/o. Suresh, Dto. Rambharosh, aged about 36 years, R/o. yiliage Kc^hmanda, Dtetrict Janjgir Champa, Chhattlsgarh 12. Shyam Bai, W/o. Gayaprasad, aged abbut 31 years, S/o. Rambharosh, R/o. Lachanpur, District Janjglr Champa, Chhattisgarh 13. Rambai, W/o. Pramod Kumar, D/o. Rambharosh, aged about 25 years, Respondents Plafntlffs Respondents Defendants Respondents Plamtjffs -^- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Vwsus Vinod Kumar @ Ashwini Kumar S/o. Devi' Prasad, aged about 37 years, Caste Brahman, Pramod Kumar, S/o. DevJ Prasad, ^ed about 34 years, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Chandrashekh, S/o. aged about 32 years, Devi Prasad, Durga Bai, Wd/o.Devi Prasad, aged about 57 years, Suraj, S/o. Devi Prasad, aged about 27 years, Mamta Bal, 8/0. Devi Prasad, aged afcK3ut29yeais, Res{»ndentsNo.1 to Qi^ caste ars Brahman, R/o. Wlage Amruwa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Narsingh Prasad, S/o. Raghunandan Prasad, aged about 55 years, Vata'i Prasad, S/o. Raghunandan Prasad, aged about 50 years, Dipa Bal, D/o. Raghunandan Prasad, aged about 45 years Ramnath &'o. aged about tomal Prasad Khoman Prasad, years, Vimla Bai, D/o. Khanan Prasad, aged about 55 years, Shamta Bai, D/o. Khoman Prasad, agedabout 60 years, Respondents No.7 to 12 atl are R/o. Vrilage Amruwa, Tehsil Champa, Distriet Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Gopal Prasadaged about 42 years S/o Ramadhar R/o Vitlage-Amruwa Tehsil Champa Dlstrict Janjgir- Champa C.G. Sulochana Devi aged about 47 years, W/o Premla! R/o-Vlllage Ammwa Tehsil Champa District- Janjgir Champa C.G. 15. Sarojini Bai W/o Khaiman Prasad, aged about 60 years R/o Vltlage- Amnma, Tehsil Chama Distrtet- Janjglr Champa C.G. 16. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-The District Magfetrate, Janjgir, Dtetrict Janjgir Champa C.G. (Second Appeat under Section 100 of the CPC) Mr.Dheeraj Wankhede, counsel for the appeliants. Mr.Vwek Rathore, oounsel for respondents No.1 to6. None present for respondents No.7 to 15. Mr.Sumit Jhanwar, Panet Lawyer for respondent No.16/Stete. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. 8hanna,,t.» - c ORDER(ORAL$ (1-9-2011) By this Second Appeal under Sectton 100 of the Code of Civit Procedure, the appeltants have chatlenged thetegaWty & proprtetyofthe judgment & decree dated 19.1.ax)5 passed by the Third Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir inCivit Appeal No.71A/2004,revereing the judgment and decree of sutt passed by the Second Civit Judge Class-li, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.176-/94 dated 14.2.2001. 1 have heard leamed counsei for the parties, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment & decree of the trial Court and recordsof the Courts b^ow. As per undisputed facts of the case, the property was owned by one Qajraj, he dled ieaving three daughters namely Chandabai, Jugwabai and.Rivabaiandwidow Jankibai. Chandabai was havlng no children. Rivabai had flled the sujt for cteclaration of 1/3rd share over the property, pros^slon and means profrt against the present appellants atong with purchaser^ Both the parties have contested the claim, but the present appeilants/defendants have not adduced any svrclence to |wove any partition. Original defendant No.4 Komal Prasad has executed sale deed in favour of the present appellantsand as per daim of the present appellants, will relating to property had been executed by Jankibai, WcVo of Gajraj. Komal Prasad was also havlng Independent Interest over the feSi'^'J sigBs'a; -^— property. The present appeliantsare not co-owners or heirs of Kwnai Prasad or any of the persons having interestover the property. 4. These alt appellants are not required to file any suit cr claim that what would be share of heire of Gajraj, but they are required to claim that ttie property purchased from Komal Prasadshould be allotted in the share of Komal Prasad. 5. In these circumstances, 1 do not find any substence in the appeat involving substantial question of law. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and tt is herebydismissed. However, the appellants are ak iiberty to flle general suit for partition "and allotment, of tfte propaly purehased by them in share-p^priginal defendant No.4 Komat Prasad. Appeitate decree shall be effective after six months from today and iT suit Is fii»iwithin six months on behalf of the appellants, then the Court Is required to consider the possession of the appellants and their protecti(»i tiii disposal ofthe suit. No order as to costs. /- Sd/- TRSharma Judge ^ ^