IN THE HIGH COURT 9F CHHATTISGAR ALBILASPLLR 2% sECOND APPEAL No. 0f 2006 Smy’e Bench Krishna Kumar Tiwari, aged about 45 years s/o Dwarika Prasad Tiwari r/o village Dhaniadoli, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G) Apgellgnt / 1 . Versus Ballu Singh aged about 40 years s/o Makhan Singh r/o village Darwaja , Tahsil Mungeli, District, Bilaspur (C.G) 2. State of Chhattisgarh — Through— Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G) EMO OF SE§OND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE 9F gIVIL PROCEDHRE, 1908 #J H M XI-HC-78 3am,m,%amgt $29 .‘Nux Q§Q m zooé Wm<W> . mam ammamia; WWW 15.01,200? Appellam-Krishm Kumar Stafe by 5hri Akhi! Agr Heard am adm§ssion. The plaintiff/appenam‘ i aggrieved by The judgmenf and decree dated 23.03.2006 passed in Civil. Appeal No.22-A Vof 2005’ by Addifional Dis‘rrkf Judge, M ngeli, Disfr'icf Bilqspur wherein fhe dismissa! ef The suh‘ by The Cvi! Judge Class-I, Mungeli in Civil Suii No.14-A of 2001 was affirmed. 2. mmdmm ' éawm Tiwari by 5hri AMSridhar, AdvocaTe. , P.L. Brief facfs of The case re ThuT The piainTiff insTiTuTed a suiT for passessien afTer demoliTio af supersTrucTure pieeding ThaT The suiT iarid was The JoinT family roperfy of The plainTiff. There was an aral parTiTicn in 1998vin which The suit land fell To The share of The plainTiff mid was recerded in house over The suiT land and we in unaiiThorized possession Thereef. 3, The ploinTiff did noT se k The relief of declaraTion of his TiTle over The suiT land. 4. The defendenT resisTed lang, uninTerrupT-ed adverse pi faTher Makhan Singh had p: defendanT had perfecTed his possession. 5. suiT land / The Civil Judge, Class-I graund ThaT The plaihTiff had fc e claim on The ground ThaT he was in :ssession of The suiT lands which his :ssessed during his iife Time. The TiTle oven The suiT land by L Mungeli dismissed The suiT on The iled To prove his TiTle over The is home. DeferidanT has consTrucTed a adverse ' & h XI-HC—78 HW,W,W . Sifg‘fVo‘ gag WW”HNHHHN”HN. W 2006 mm (W) Wmm WWW WW§WW égwm mmm , 91; and had {ed no decumenfary vidence evidencing partifion cr’ joinf paésession over fhe suif hnd Admiffedfy, fhe defendmf was in passessisn cf The sui‘r iands. In fhe absence ef any documentary evidence"‘f¢ show Thaf fhe sui+ iands were purchased by The ancesfor of fhe plaintiff from Rqja 6m" ti bets 0r fhai The joinf possessicn of The piainfiff's famiiy was recer ed ever The suiT land, The Iower CourT dismissed The suiT. . 6. In FirsT Appeai‘ The iea ned AppeiiaTe CourT had affirmed The vjudgmenf and decree of fhe low r- Courf. I have perused The record cf The Civii SuiT Nam-A of 2001 have aiso considered The evidence baTh documenTary as we" as oral en record. The plainTiff aduld shaceed only'en The sTrengTh his TiTle and noT on any weakness in The defendenT's cose‘ whe was admiTTedly in possessicn of The syiT land. I am of The consid red' opinion ThoT There is no legal documenTary evidence To esTob ish plainTiff/appellonT's TiTle over The soiT land. Oral evidence as To aurce of plainTiff‘s TiTle is also vague. The finding recorded by The l wen CourT as well as FirsT AppelloTe CourT ThoT The ploim‘iff has fai ed To esTablishhis TiTle over The 'suiT land is Thus impeccable. Thus, n subsTanTial quesTion of law is invoived in This appeal. As a resulT, Thi appeal is dismissegLaT The sTage of admission. There shall be no or r as To cosTs. l Sd_/ MW Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge . r P.T.O.- d i