^ Defendants rs S.A.No. 304/2005 Sjnale Bench: Hoh'bleShri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. 1. 2. 3. Bahadur Patel, S/o - Salik Ram Patel, aged about—60 years. Ram&sh Patei, S/o-Bhadur Patel, aged about-35vears. Jeevan Paatel, S/o about32 years. Shadur Patel, aged' Al! are agriculturist by profession and resldent pf village Gobarsinga, Tehsi! - Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4. 5. Sitaram Patel, S/o - Shambhunath Patei, aged about — 60 years, Occupation - Agriculturist, Resident of — Gobarsinga, Tehsii - Sarangarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattis.garh. Nonimati, D/o - Shambhunath Patei, Wife of - Janakram Patei, aged about - 42 years, occupation - Housewife, Resident of - Viliage Salhaipa!i, Tehsil - Bargarh, District—Bargarh, Chhattisgarh. Haripriya, D/o - Shambhunath Patei, Wife of- Ram KumarAghariya, aged about—45 years, Occupation - House wife, Resjdent of— Viliags Dansara, Tehsil -Sarangarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Radhapriya, D/o - Shambhunath Patel, Wife of - Tarachand Aghariya, aged about 44 years; Qccupation - House . wife, Resident of - Village Mohra, Tehsil and District - Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Col!ector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Shri Kishore Bharduri, learned counse! for the appeilants. Shri R. S. Patei, counsel for respondents for 1 to 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed/on 21st Mareh, 2007) 1. Heard'on admi^sfon. A concurrerit finding was recorded by both the Courts below dsclaringthe plaintiff/respondents herein asthe holder of the title over the suit la.nd and injuncting the appe!!ant/defendants herein from interfering in the possession ofthe suit iand. ^^••^f,: ^ ^ :ffl 2. I have perused the record of civil suit No. 43A/2003 and of the considered opinion thatthe flnding recorded by both the Courts betow is based on proper appreciation of evidence, documentary as well as oral on record and that no substantial question of iaw is involved in this appeal and the findingsrecorded by both the Courts be!ow are purely findingsoffact. 3. In this viewof the matter, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shail be no order as to costs. 4. !n view for the above, I.A. Nos. 1779/2005 for urgent hearing and 3214/2006 for out ofturn iisting the case st^nd dlsposed of. ;Priya D)lip Raosaheb Deshmukh judge tsi.^eSi'avt-