HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR SECQNDAPPBAL N0.346/2011 APPBLLANTS Plaintiffs RBSPONDBNTS Defendants b>^: 1. 2. 3. 4. VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. Maaohar Lal, S/o Somnafh Sahu, aged about 60 years, Thaawar, S/o Soinnafli Sahu, aged about 55 years, Baashi Lal, S/o Soianath Sahu, aged about 45 years, Brijlal, S/o Soranafh Sahu, aged about 42 years, AU are R/o ViUage Buddupara Mungjhar, Post Mungjhar, Talisil Devbhog, Distodct Raipur (C.G.). Tularain, S/o Rasha @ Lahwa Ram Sahu, aged about 65 years, Khageshwar, S/o Tiilaram Sahu, aged about 40 years, Murari, s/o tiilaraca Sahu, aged abut 38 yeai^, Padum, S/o Tularam Satiu, aged about 32 years, SunU S/o Rajkiimar Saliu, aged about 22 years, Tulsi, s/o Vishnu Sahu, aged about 40 yeai-s, Mahesh @ Miatu, S/o Tulsi Ram Sahu, aged about 21 years, Naadlal, S/o Martam Sahu, aged about 20 years, Saatraca, S/o Jagat Ram Sahu, aged about 50 years, Dayaraoi S/o Jagat Raai Sahu, aged about 55 years, Rajesh Kumar, S/o Dayaram Sahu, aged about 36 years, Maaoj Kuniar, S/o Dayaram Sahu, aged about 34 years, Jugeshwar, S/o Shyain Lal Sahu, aged about 35 years, Niraa Das, S/o Devidas Kashyap, aged about 36 years, Raniesh, S/o tikeshwar Kashyap, aged about 40 years, All are Resident of VHlage Mungjhar Buddupara, Post Mungjhar, Tahsil Devbhog, Distdct Raipur (C,G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through: fhe CoUector, Raipur, Tahsil aad District Raipur (C.G.). SECQND APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 100 OP THB CWIL PROCBDURB CQDE^1908. (SB :Hon»bleMr. T.P.SIiarma, J.) Present- : Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vinod KumarTekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 16. Respondents No. 1 to 15 not noticed. INK JUDGBMBNT (Passedoa 08/12/2011) 1. By fhis second appeal under Sectton 100 of fhe Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appellaats have chaUenged flie legality and propriely of fhe judgment and decree dated 6/8/2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyabaad Distdct Raipur C.G. hi civil appeal No. 33A/2009 affinnmg tfae judgment aad decrce dated 28/9/2007 passed by Civil Judge Class-2, Devbhog Distnct Raipur C.G. ia civil suit No. 13A/07 whereby Civil Judge Class-2 has disniissed fhe civil suit filed on behatf of the appeUaats for possession aad pennanent mjunction. 1 2. Shri Malay Kuinar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Vinod Kuraar Tekain, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 16 are heard. 3, Judginent and decree ofbofh fhe Couits below perused. 4. As per judgment aad decree present appeUants have claimed the possession aiid permanent injunction agamst respondents after deinoUtion ofstracture i,e. house constructed by respondents on fhe groiind tiiat appeUaats are owner of the suit property and respondents have dispossessed theni 5 years prior to filmg of fhe suit, As per judgment and decree of Courts below present plaiattffs has faUed to prove fhe ownership over fhe property. In absence of prove of ownership; bofh the Courts below dismissed fhe siiit and appeal filed on behalfofthe appeUaats. 5, In order to evict respondente froia suit prexnises on the basis of tiUe appeUaats were under obUgation to prove fhe title over the suit property, iii absence of such prove by dismissiag the suit and appeal bofh fhe Courts below has not coiaiaitted any iUegaUty, I do not fiad any substance aad substaatial question of law in this second appeal, Consequently, second appeal is Uable to be dismissed and is hereby disniissed, No order as to costs, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^-