r^' r-j ^ BEFORE THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR. S.A. No. 2^ /2011 Appellant/ befendant No.l •^^ ^y^ ^^y '^^1 ^'^<> ^ VERSUS Defendant No.l Respondent no.l befendant No.2 Respondent No.2 Kalyan Singh Kurre Son of Deo Prasad Kurre, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village Mungeli, Tahsil - Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) 1. Jeevan Lal Son of Heerados Satnami, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village Daupara AAungeli, bistt. Bilaspur-(C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Biiaspur (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 100. SECTION 103 ANb ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF^"HE CObE OF THECIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 ^^^_ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 89/2011 APPELLANT Kalyan Singh Kurre Versus RESPONDBNTS Jeevan Lal and another SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri G.P. Kurre, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri Uma Tiwari, Adv. for the respondent No. |1. Ku. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer, forthe State. ORAL ORDER (4-5-2011) 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendantNo. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge (FTC), Mungeli in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2008 whereby and whereunder appellant's appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been affirmed. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- 3. Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of his title over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 1126/2 area 0.02 acre outof 0.69 acre situated in village Mungeli and its possession. According to plaintiff, late Anup Das was owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 1126/2 area 0.69 acre. Defendant No. 1 Kalyan Singh Kurre purchased 0.09 acres of land out of 0.69 acre from him in the year 1976 and obtained its possession. Plaintiff purchased suit land from Chandra Prakash and Chandresh i.e. legal representatives of deceased Anup Das on 26-3-1991 after paying consideration ofRs. 12,000/- and obtained its possession. I; • /^^ The plaintiff was illegally dispossessed from the suit lan< by the defendant No. 1. Application for restoration of possession filed before the Sub Division Officer was allowed. However, defendant No. 1 preferred revision against the above order and the revisional court set aside the order dated 5-7-1994 and allowed the revision with a direction to institute a civil suit for declaration of title before competent civil court. Hence instant suit is filed. 4. Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence led material placed and submissions made, decreed the suit finding inter alia: plaintiff is owner of the suit land and was dispossessed illegally by the defendant No. 1. 5. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence, dismissed defendant's appeal. 6. Shri Kurre, learned counset for the' appellant would submit, the appellant purchased 11 decimal of land inclusive of suit land but due to mistake, sale deed was executed only for 9 decimal, although the appellant is owner in possession of 11 decimal of land. 7. I have heard leamed; counsel for -the: lappellant and perused the records of both the courts below. 8. Indisputably, late Anup Das executed a sale deed regarding 9 decimal of land. Both the Courts below have concurrently held appellant's ownership only over 9 decimal of land. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality, absurdity or material in-egularity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below and in the considered opinion of this Court, nosubstantial question of law arises fo'r determination in this appeal. 9. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question oflaw involved in the ./fi:K""^ ^; ^-^. -^ ^ • '-^ ^ '^^': ^^^ -^ appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 10. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge !l\ 'r;-i'iU ;.-i i.^.^ ^ ^