i IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHIAT BILASPUR Appeliant Respondents k L'x' ‘4 f’ 993% $9 f, u W 0&3 @‘9 sECOND APPEAL N%%70f E2006 $mgfe Bench Krishna Kumar Tiwari, aged about 45 years s/o Dwarika Prasad Tiwari r/o village Dhaniadoli, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G) Versus 1. Jaiaram’ Marar aged about 36 years s/o Balwant Marar- r/o village 63"“ Darwaja, Tahsil Mungeli, District “f6? Bilaspur (C.G) State of Chhattisgarh — Through— Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G) \../ MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 I' xy/(igh i v ‘ l i i 7 .. _("¢h ( XI-HC-78 WW,m1—ggf%amgx . sgawa ‘ g} Wm..nuunu u. ..._ a zooé mW<W® WWW WWW WW§WW' %a%w3n%¥r WWW 15.01.2007 ‘ AppeHam-Kr'ishna Kumar Tiwari by 5hr? A.V.5ridhar’ Advocafe. Sfafe by 5hri Akhii AgrawuL P,L. Heard on admission. The plaintiff/appe!!anf is aggrieved by fhe judgmenf and decree dafed 23.03.2006 passed in Civil Appea! No.22-A uf 2005 by Addi‘rioncd Disfr‘icf Judge, Mmgeli, Disfricf Bilaspur- wherein The dism§ssal 0f fhe suif by fhe Civii Judge Ciass-I, Mtmgdi in Civii Suh‘ No.14-A of 2001 was; affirmed. 2. Brief facfs éf fhe case ire i‘haf fhe piain‘riff insfi‘ru‘red a suii‘ for possessien affer' demciifim af supersfrucfure pieading Thai fhe suif iand was The join? family praperi‘y bf Thz‘ piaim‘iff. There was an om! par-fifian in 1998 in whigh The suif land feii fa ihe'share of fhe piainiiff and was recorded in is name. Defendant has cenéi'rucfed n hause aver- The suif land and we in‘unaufhorized possession fhereof. 3. The piainfiff did no? se klfhe r-eiief af declara‘rian cf his fifie aver The su§f Eand. 4. The defendum‘ resisfed he ciaim on The greund fhaf he was in iongt uninierrupfed adverse ssessian cf fhe suif iands which his ancesfor had received from The ersfwhiie ruier' and had ihus perfecfed his fi‘He over ihe sa e. 5. The Civil Judge. Ciass- , Mungeii dismissed ‘i'he suit 0n The ground Thu? ihe plainfiff had f led 1‘0 prove his Tifle aver fhe sui‘l' land and had led no documenfar'y vidence evidencing parfifien or jewL-/ / P. XI—HC—78 . mam-Irma 200 WWW WWW WWW possession over- fhe suit land. péssession of ihe suif lands. evidence Te showvihal The suii “The plainfiff‘ or' There was an i land fell to The share cf The pl lower CpurT dismissed Ths suiT. 6. in Firs? Appeal, ihe lea ned Appellai'e Cauri has affirmed The judgmenT and decree af The lo er Court I have perused The record of The Civil SuiT No,14-A of 2001 and have alse considered The evidence boTh documenTary as well as aral on record. The plainTiff could succeed only an The sTrengTh f his TiTle and noT an any weakness in The defendanT's case, who wa admiTTedly in possessian of The suiT land. I am of The. consi ered opinion ThaT There is no legal documenTary evidence To esTa lish plainTiff/appellanT's TiTle over The suiT land. Oral evidence as To ‘ource 'of plainTiff's TiTle is also vague. The finding recorded by The ower CaurT as well as FirsT AppellaTe' CourT ThaT The plainTiff has f land is Thus impeccable. Thus, r in This appeal. Asa resulT, Tl’ admission. There shall be no on WW§WW éxwanéw Kvr Admiffedw, The defendanf was in In fhe absence of any documamary land was ihe jainf family praper‘ry nf )r'a! parfifion in 1998 in whichjhe suii' infiff amwas recorded in his namel ihe mmmaiawr) led To esTablish his TiTle over The suiT lo subsTanTial quesTion of law is involved is appeal is dismissed aT The sTage of der as To cosTs. —-_E—-———————.-.-——-——— Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.