_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Second Appeai No. 22112007 Appeuants 1(a) Yawan Singh $10 Late Shri Bodhan Piaintiffs Singh Gond, Aged about 28 yrs. R/o Village Patna (Junapara), Tahsil Baikunthpur (b) Tulsi D/o Late Bodhan Singh Gond (Wio Kamlesh Singh) Aged about 25 Yrs. R/o Viuage Ajabnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Neeta Dio Late Bodhan Singh Gond (W10 Mahendra Singh) Aged about 23 Yrs. R/o Village Paharpara, Ajabhnagar, Tahsll Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (d) Raysingh Sio Late Bodhan Singh ‘Gond, Aged abaut 22 Yrs. Rlo Village Patna (Junapara) Tahsil Baikunthpur (e) Dileshwar Singh Slo Bodhan Singh Gond. Aged about 20 Yrs. R/o Village Patna (Junapara) Tahsil Baikunthpur 2. Birjhu Singh. Slo Ahibaran Singh, Aged about 40 Yrs. Occupation Agriculturist. 3. Dalbir Singh S/o Late Late Ranjeet Singh, Aged 40 Yrs. 4. Manmati Widow Ranjeet Singh Gond, Aged about 6O Yrs. All Resident of Village Patna Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) Versus 1. Shwbalki (Kept wife/o Late Kawalsai @ Kawalsingh) Aged about 50 Yrs. R/o Viliage Patna. Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 2. State of C.G. Tnrough Collector — Korea (C.G.} Respondents Defendants Second Aggeal Under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code L > - Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the appenants. Shri Akhi! Arawal, Panel Lawer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25-06-2007) Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is directed agait the judgment and decree dated 3.3.20 psed in‘Civil Appeal No..32-A/2006 y the District Judge, Korea, Baiunthpur whereby the dismissal of the Civil Suit No. 19- A/2001 by Civil Judge, Class-ll, Baikunthpur vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2002 was affirmed. 3. Shri Prakash Tiwar, learn counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs did not dispute that the appellants could succeed only by shoWing from the rcrd that Shivbalki was the mistress and not the legally married wife of Kawaisai. He did not dispute that Hindu Succession Act as not apicable to the parties in question. 4. Both the Courts below have ecorded a ncurrent dnding that the parties in question are Gond and are not governed by Hindu Succession Act. Both the Courts below have also recorded a concurrent tinding that Shivbalki — respondent o 1/defendant was the legally married wife of Kawalsai and as per custom prevalent in the community, she was entitled to 1/3rd share of the property left by Kawalsai. The above finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below and is purely a finding of fact. 5. ln that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ ‘ Dilip Raosaheb.Deshmukh Judge l.A. No. 1 which is an application for temporary injunction is also $§ Present: g y ns 0? as b k i ed eo w pl r co N