\..;..W _’‘. / IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B LASPU SECOND APPEAL No 1U t/04,’ 3Ingie Bengh w/‘y SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION IOO OF CODE OF ClVlL PROCEDURE R /Aggellant wMadhusudan S/o Santosh aged (about 45 years R/o Village \@&(¢:;:$;" ’ Dabhakhar Tah. &IDistrict M é“ a6 Mahasamund C.G. ; Law ; $o§$ a i;q Axa . g V E R S U‘S Q T69 @Q’V Eesgondent : Mhog Singh S/o Hate Singh aged About 50 years R/o Village Dhabhal<har'Tah.8I District Mhasamund C.G. aw Emrg gshigh. ageé awtz-t,» 3?: .Wgimm $16! gaagaz gumasamr 531% mta Wm} giagh; O~ \Dmvaxi. w iim‘m yaam aWv€g mm Rk w 'Egang. %a§a§¢h&m ‘wmut ‘ a gamin mam. Bhagaig a Maha$amw§a taww. WA: ahammsg w ' m garmg‘hanm 9,3. . wkamg ~ aanaaammé‘ h \. W$ha$mamx ‘ wia Wanna. agea awuv ‘ 3E agata amuw eé abam: ‘- 39 warm -' $a$¥im ‘i‘wsitl £1 r yaexas ‘ gawag ’E&$1E$; & m£§£¢g wt: gawwgani $.23. w &1a€3&$wm&& \ ‘ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 1 1 1/2005 APPELLANTS Madhusudan Versus RESPONDENTS Bhog Singh (dead) through legal representatives SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :— Ms. Sharmila Singhaj, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER ‘ (22—3—201 1) Heard on admission. Instant defendant’s second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17—9—2004 passed by the 1st, Additional District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No. 17—A/99 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has ibeen dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 18—11-1999 has been affirmed. Facts of the case in brief are as under:— The respondent (henceforth ‘the plaintiff’) instituted a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and in the alternative, for possession of the spit property i.e. With respect to land bearing Khasra No. 395/1 area 0:28 hectare against'the appellant (henceforth ‘the defendant’). According to the plaintiff, father of the defendant purchased land bearing Khasra No. 303/5 area 6 acres from plaintiff’s father Vide registered sale deed dated 20—3— 1967. During‘ settlement its Khasra number has been changed as 744. Old Khasra number of the suit land is 303/ l. The defendant got his name mutated over the suit land in collusion with revenue authorities. The defendant by tiling written statement denied the averments of plaint. According to the defendant, 01d khasra number of the disputed land was 303/5 before settlement, for that specific order has been passed by th settlement officer. Although in revenue record, the areais 6 acres but in fact the land is 7.40 acres which has been purchased from the father of the plaintiff. lt was further pleaded that since they are in possession of the suit land ' since 1967 to 1995 therefore, they have also perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. i Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence led, submissions made and material placed, decreed the suit inter alia finding, the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit land, the suit land is not part of Khasra No. 303/5, the defendant failed to prove his possession over the suit land..The Ist appellate Court on re—appreciation of the evidence led and material placed, affirmed the above Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellant would submit, in fact by way of instant suit, plaintiff wants to challenge the order of settlement officer which is barred under Section'257 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, decreeing the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of both the Courts below. The defendant in para 5 of his statement in unequivocal term has admitted, as per land records and registered sale deed, the area of land bearing Khasra No. 303/5 is finding. Hence this second appeal. 1959 and learned both the Courts below have erred in acres, before 1995, he was under the impression that area of Khasra No. 303/5 is 6 acre, new number of Khasra No. 303/5 is 744. The area of Khasra No. 744 is 6 acres. Khasra No. 395 which was added in his khata by settlement officer is a separate Khasra number, the old T1 e 6 Q9 piece number of Khasra of Khasra No. No. 303/ 395 1 from 1's 301, plaintiff’s he has father. notétlnyKed para 6 of his statement, he admitted, remaining land of Khasra No. 395 was recorded in the name of plaintiff and his brother. Considering the defendant’s above admissions, learned trial Court as well as the appellate court has decreed the suit. The suit was not filed for setting aside any order of settlement officer. The suit filed‘was for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Both the Courts below have held the suit land is in ’ plaintiff’s possession. The defendant could not prove his possession or title over the suit land. In View of above, it cannot be said that the suit is barred under Section 257 of the Land Revenue Code. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine—qua—non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100" of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. ln the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 14. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge