HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Single Bench : Hpn'ble Shri Ditip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellante Defendante Respondents Plaintiffs Second Appeal No.222 of 2008 1. Santosh, son of Ganpat Sahu,aged 27 years, occupation Agriculturist, 2. Basantabai, wife of Rama, aged 62 years, occupation Agriculturist, Both resident of Village Umraonagar, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) versus 1. Smt. Bhaga Bai, wife of Ganpat Sahu, aged 65 years, Agriculturist, resident of Village Umraonagar, Tahsil Saja, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Prembai, wife of Feru Sahu, aged 47 years, Agriculturist, resident of Village Dani-Ghatholi, Tahsil and District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh) 3. State o1 Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, t'istrict Durg (Chhattisgarh) Aepeal^inderSection 100 of the Code ofCIv[l Procedyre Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri C.K.Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vimtesh Bajpai, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri G.D.Vaswani, Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 01st day of October, 2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 24-04-2008 and decree dated 28-04-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bemetara in Civil Appeat No.30-A/2007, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29-11-2006 passed by the Civil Judge Class-1, Bemetara in Civil Suit No.Z-A/2004 was affirmed. r*-" /'-; •• ^, I«tS-,aTS:^3^ ;«. ^ ^f^::?..£^ ^ v s ^ (3) The sole ground urged by Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the appetlants/defendants is that the lower appellate Court ought to have held that the suit not having been filed within a period of one year from the order of mutation was clearly barred by limitation. (4) No other ground was urged. (5) Having considered the submission of Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants/defendants, 1 have perused the record. 1 am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 that the suit for declaration of title and possession was within limitation is correct. No substantial question of law arises for determination ofthis appeal. (6) The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. D RaosS ^^wu Gopal