IN THE HON‘BLE HIGH wURT OF $HATTI$ARH AT BILASPUR. s.A. No. 360 /2004 PPELLANTS /: l. Shankarram s/o. Ghuran. aged about 33 years . Bhola Ram S/o. Ghuran Ram, aged about 29 years mt. Sevati Bai widow of Ghuran Ram. aged about 58 years. All are resident of vill. Bankombo, Tah Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). Jaimati Bai D/o. Ghuran Ram, aged about 43 years, R/o. vill. Bankombo, Tah. Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Cellector Jashpur Jashpur Nagar (C.G.) . / SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECI‘ION 160 OF C.P.C. SUIT VALUED ON R S 10.000. 00 ONLY. FIRST APPEAL VALUED On k.10:000.00 ONLY. is SECOND APPEAL VAIUED ON R310. 000. 00 ONLY. . gm) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 300 of2004 APPLICANTS :4 Shankarram & others Versus : Jaimati Bai & another SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (SB Hon'ble Mr N K. Agarwal J ) Present : Shn JK Shashtn Advocate for the appellants Shn Vmod Tekam Panel Lawyer for the State ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19.01.20] 1) Heard on admission. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2004 passed by Ilnd Addl. District Judge (FTC) Jashpur, in Civil Appeal Nol 33-A/03, whereby the first appellate a court while dismissing ‘the appellants appeal .adirmed th judgment and decree passed by the trial eouit on 05.08.03 in Civil Suit No. 30-A/01 . Brief facts of the case are that: the plaintiffs and respondent No. 1 are legal representatives of deceased Ghuran Ram. The suit property belongs to late Ghuran Ram and plaintids as well as the defendant No. l are successor in interest of suit property. 3. The plainti§s case in nutshell is based on agreement‘(Annexure P/2) . As per plaintin‘s, defendant No. l had relinquished her p share in the suit property in their favour and therefore she is not 7?;y; 1‘ e , J entitled for any share over the suit property and therefore it may be declared that only the plaintiffs are the owners of the 'suit property. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led, material placed, submissions made and after considering the evidence with regard to agreement (Annexure P/2) disbelieved the above agreement and dismissed the plaintih‘s suit. The hrst appellate court after perusing entire evidence available on record, also dismissed the ' appeal. Hence this Second Appeal. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and having gone through the entire evidence, judgment and decree of both the courts below and the document in question (Annexure P/2), I do not hnd any illegality or irregularity committed by both the courts below in disbelieving the document (Annexure P/2). Further, both the courts below have found‘that document (Annexure P/2) contains material interpolations and is not genuine. The above findings are essentially findings of fact. The appellant’s counsel also failed to point out any circumstances showing perversity, illegality or absurdity in the above concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below; 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. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Cour has no option but to dismiss the appeal at admission stage. 8. In view of above, since no substantial question arises for determination of the case, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. J/ Sdl— ‘ N.KnAgarwal ‘Sahu , Judge t J ‘l t