HI<3H COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.43 of 2®11 AppeHant Konduram, S/o Gangaram ©ond, Plaintiff aged about 58 years, Agrioulturisl, R/o Viliage Behbeda, Maasfcffiiras, Tahsli Antagarh, District NortH Bastar Kanker (C.G.) Respondents Defendants Nh^^ e.' Versus 1. Mehtarin Bai, W/o Sukhram, aged about 58 years, Caste Gond, R/o Viiiage Kanakpur, Pc®t Aasuikhar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distrtet Nortl| Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2. Sukhmati @ Mehrobaj, W/o ' Ramuram, aged about 52 yeafs, R/0 ViiSage KanaKpur, Post Aasulkhar, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Dlstrict North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) At present R/o Gupta Chowk, Beside Madhu Dresses Near NaSa Jhopdinuma House, Datii Rajhara, Tahsi! Balod, District Durg (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Coilector, Kanker, Distrid Nath Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Second Appeaj under Sectjon 100 ofthe CPC) Mr.P.P.Sahuwfth MrAditya Kunmr, coynsel for the appeSJ@nt. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J^ ORDER (ORAU (18-8-2011) 1. By this Second AppeaS uncter Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has challenged the legality & propriety of the judgment & deoree of dismlssal of appeal dated 9.12.2010 p^sed by the Additiona! District Judge (F.T.C.), Bhanupratas^ur, Distt.Uttar Bastar Kanker, in Civii Appeal No.OSA/10, affirming tte judgment & decree of dismissal of civii suit dated 17.12.2009 pass®3by the Civil Judge CJass-Si, Bhanupratappur in Civil Suit No.tS-A/2009, whereby suit fiied on behalf of the pr^ent appeilant has been diSEnissed on the ^ © -^ ground that the appellant falted to prove sole ownersNp over the property in question. 2. i have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the judgment and decree impugned, judgment and decree of the triai Court and records ofthe Courts below. 3. As per judgment and decree impugned, oriQinaUy pffoperty was owned by one Konti, grandfather of Konduram and respondents N@.1 and 2 are daughters of uncte of the appellant nameiy Kave, although tlie parties are members of the Scheduled Tribe. but th®appeliant has not proved any custom contrary to the Hindu law, inter alia, he has admitted that the Hindu taw is also appiicabie to him. 4. In these circumstances, whiSe dtemissing the sult as weii as the appeat the Courts below have not committed any iilegality. 1 do not find any substantiaE question of law for decision of this appeai. 5. Consequentiy, the appeal being devoid of merit js Sjabie to be dlsmissed and it is hereby dismissed at the motion stege Kseif. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge