Bb ^ "" y / ^•-^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR Second Appeal No. 306/ 2003 APPBLLANTS DBFENDANT8 RB8PONDBNTS PLAJNTIFFS DBFBNDANT 1. Raaicharaa, aged 60 years S/o Milu Sahu, 2. Maheshram, aged 55 years S/o Milu Sahu, R/o Raikona P.S. and Tahsil Bilaigarh, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Hadcharaa, aged 48 years S/o Milu Sahu, 2. Ram Nafh, aged 45 years, S/o Milu Sahu 3. Shyamlal, aged 43 years, S/o Milu Sahu 4. Mflu, ^ed 75 Years^ S/o Raghunafh Sahu, AIl R/o Raykona, RS, Bila^arh Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 5. State of Chhattisgarh Thiough the CoUector, Raipur(C.G.). 8ECOND APPBAL U/8 100 OF THE CODB OF CIVIL PROCEDURB. (SB :Hontble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:-. Shri L.C. Das, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. forthe State/respondentNO. 5. ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 27/7/2009) 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/4/2003 and 2/5/2003 passed by Pirst Additional District Judge, Balodabazar in First Civil appeal No. 58-A/02 affirming the decree and judgmca'it dated 28/9/02 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Baloda Bazar^ in civil suit No. 72- A/87 whereby Civil Judge Class-II has decreed the suit for partition. 2. Judgment and decree is challenged on the ground that the property was not subject matter to partition and leamed both the Courts below has coramitted an illegality by decreeing the suit for partition. 3. Leamed counsel for the parties €ire heard. Judgment and decree impugned and records of courts below perused. ^y'^ '^ \^y 2-" }(s. ^- \ -\. ^\ 4. Leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that tho present appellants are owner of the property and a self acquired property of the appellants not subject matter of the partition and courts below hae wrongly decreed the suit after holding the property in the name of appellants or alsojoint family property subject matter of partition. 5. On perusal of the record reveals that property was recorded in the name of the appellants. One property was purchased by respondent Miluram the father of the present appellant in the nanie of the present appellant on the basis of evidence available on record leamed both the cx^urts below decreed the suit for partition. Appellant Ramcharan have admitted in Para-3 of his evidence that his father was purchased the property from the income of the property received on partition and from his self eaming, this evidence is sufficient for drawing inference that although the property was recorded in the name of the appellants and was purchased in the name of the appellants. Father of the appellants had purchased the property from the income of property received in partition and his personal income, therefore, the only appellants are not owner of the propCTty and property recorded in the name of appellants were subject matter of the partition. The concurrent finding of both the oourts below is based on legal evidenee, I do not find any substantial question of law for any decision of the second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge