HI^H COURT QF CHH.4.TriS6.4RH AT BIL4SPUR Second AD"@aS No^l07_oflQOT ApDeilant Kespondents SB : Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharmd. J. Daroga, aged 75 yeors, son of bte Shri Kawlu, caste Bhaina, resldent of viliage Kasaibahara, Sadhwani, P.S<<3aureia, tehsil Pendraroad, district Bitespur (ChhattiSQarh) Vs. 1, Jawahar aged 50 years, son of Shri Daroga, caste Bhaina, 2. Nehru aged 46 years, son of Shri Daroga, caste Bhaina/ Both residents of village Kasaibahara, Sadhwani, P.S.Saurela, tehsit Pendraroad, dlstrict Bilaspur (Chhattisgorh) (Second Appea! under Section 100 of CPC ) (SB: Hon'ble AAr. TP. SharmQ, J.) Mr.Somnath Verma/ counsel for the appeilant. Mr/Yogendra Chaturvedi, counsel for 1+ie respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passsd on 28th JuJy. 2009) This second appeal is directed again'st the Judgment and decree dated 9.1.2007 passed by the Additiono.1 District Judge (F.T.C.), Pendra Koad, in Cjvj! AppeoJ No-llBBA/2003 settlng aside the Judgment and decree of dismissa! dated 6.5.2003 passed by the Ciyil Judge Cbss-II, Pendra Road, in Clyii Suit No.200A/2002. 2- Judgment and decree is chcilenged on the ground that without there being any material avaikble on record, the bwer appetiate Court has iilegQily reversed the decree and tkereby committed illego!ity. B WIS88S!N? ^- ^ 3. I have heard JeQrned counse! for the parftes^and perused the judgment and decree impugned and records of the Courts below. 4. Learned counse! for the appellant submits thQ+ suit for decbro+ion and imunction was fj'ed by respondent No.2 (son of the present appe!b<nt) which was dismissed, but the lower appellate Court has itlegaJly arrived ata finding that that present respondent No.l is in possession of the suit land after receiying the same on partition which is not based on the eyidence of th^ parties. 5. On the other hand, Judgment and decree impugned is supported on behaif of the respondents and submjts that the present oppellant and his co-defendant respondent No.2 Nehru has admitted in hss evidence that partltion ha^ been effected much before fiijng of the suit ond in consequence to the partition, present respondent No.l is in possessjon of the suit lancJ though present appetiant bW-1 baroga has not djrectly Qdmitted the ca.se of partitlon but has admltted in po.ra-5 of his cross-e-xaminatlon rebting to the partition of loan and execution of ExP/t Respondent No.2 Nehru (orjgina! defendant No.2) has specifjcally admitted in para-1 of hi5 cross-examinotiion that partition has been effected 15 years back and they were 'm separate possession of the property. The factum of separate possession has a'so supported by the witness of the Qppe'lant Jan Prasad (PW-3). 6. Evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant/r^spondent No,l and his co-defendant respondent No.2 Nehru is sufficient to prove the factum of pGrtjtion and separate posse^sion. Learned bwer appeliate Court has right'y decreed the sult. Learned lower appeltate Court hQS not committed any jjlegojit^. I do not find any substantiQl question of law for decision of this appea!. 7. Con^equentty, the appea! hos no merit, same is !iab!e. to be dismissed and is accorciingly dismissgd. f T.P. Sharma Judge