^ '^. Tf -^ i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . SECONDAPPEAL No. f^l / 2010 ® /A-PPELLANT ^lHeera Singh S/o Bisahan, aged about 30 years, caste ^-+^a^^ond, R/o Village Tilora, District ^^'trf^irt^police Station and Tahsil :^^on^-^ ^^ l^f!.. --±^^^v "' """Pendra Road, Bilaspur C.G. ( Defendant no.2) VER S U S isSPONDENTS / o ^ 2 ^" ^'.4. /• 7 1. Panchram S/o Lati Gond, aged about 54 years, Ratiram S/o Samaru Gond, aged about 42 years, Udal S/o Samaru Gond, aged about 40 years, Santram S/o Tihari Gond, aged about 32 years, Anand Singh S/o Tihari Gond, aged about 27 years, (Respondent no. 1 to 5 were plaintiffs) Bihari S/o Lati Gond, aged about 66 years, (Defendant no. 2) All are resident of village Tilora, Police Station and tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur C.G. State of C.G. through the Collector Bilaspur C.G. (Defendant no. 3) ^ ^ s^" MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. •^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble ShnPrashant Kmnar Mishra APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Second Appeal No. 131/2010 Heera Singh Versiis Panchraiii aiid others Appeamnce: Shri Rajesh Pandey, couiisel for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel La\\yer for the State. ORAL ORDER (23.Q6.2010) The two courts below have allowed the plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and partition with respect to 3.81 acres of suit land. The Trial Court declared that the plaintiff No.l Panchram, plaintifF No.2 and 3 Ratiram and Udal together, plaintiff No.4 Santram and No.5 Anand Singh together and defendant No.l Bihari are entitled to 1/4 share each in the suit land and are also entitled to get the lands partitioned. (2) It is not in dispute that the suit land belongs to Besahan along with his wife Samratiya Bai, who died issueless. (3) According to the plaintiffthey along with defendant No.3 were jointly cultivating the land. However, after death of Samratiya Bai, the defendant No.l, keeping them in dark, got recorded the name.of detendant No.2, Heera Singh in the revenue records on the ground ^)|^'l:;./i;^;^^i^^^1J|t|^^|^ -2- ^7 that Heem Singh is the adopted son of Samratiya Bai and Besahan and that Heera Singh had received the propert>? in pursuance to vvill dated 25/02/1994 (Ex.D-1) executed by Samratiya Bai. (4) According to the plaintiff, the said will is forged and that the defendant No.2 was never adopted by Samratiya Bai and Besahan and thus they are entitled to seek declaration and partition. (5) The defendants contested the suit on pleadings that Heera Singh is the adopted son of Besahan and Samratiya Bai and that Sammtiya Bai executed a will in his favour and thus Heera Singh alone would succeed the property belonging to Besahan and Samratiya Bai. (6) Both the courts below have concurrently held that in the absence of attesting witnesses of the will having been examined by the appellant in support of his plea of having acquired the propert>7 through the will and also that in the absence of any deed of adoption or ceremonies ofadoption being proved by any ofthe witness ofthe appellant, tiie foundationwith regard to the appellant alone entitled to succeed to the property ofSamratiya Bai and Besahan is not proved. (7) The finding as to the Will having not been proved in accordance with Section 63 ofthe Indian Succession Act and Section 68/69 of Evidence Act, is pure finding of Act, which cannot be unsettled in Second Appeal under Section 100 ofCPC.Similariy, the ~SMSSWW f£ ^y 3^- -3 - fact and finding as to Heera Smgh's adoption by Besahan and Samratiya is also pure finding offact. (8) There is no substantial question of law arising for determination in this appeal which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge