gél/ 2Q Ox Q/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CI-EIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. s.A. No. 29a/2oo4 Sgaxggg ggaa‘i‘i DWENDANT vo SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODEn AP?ELLANTS /1. Dhan Saq‘, aged about 35 years, 'DEFENDANI‘S S/o. Charan. 2. Harizam, aged about 32 years, s/o. charan.(since dead). Kari Bai aged about 35 years, D/o charan (since dead). ' “4. Manharan, aged about 33 years, 7'“. S/o. Charan. 0A.<MN All. of by casee satnami, R/o. .\ kg/biagkélX'liY" Village Pipar Satti, Tahsil W” -' %\o\ A... Janjgir, Distt. Janjg1r~Champa a Q. ? ‘56“, m...- (CuGo ) c ‘ «4‘6; VERSUS RESPONDmTS Rukhmani Bai, aged about 4o years, W/o. Ramjudawan Singh, by caste— Rajput Kshatriya, R/o. village Pipar Satti, Janjgir- Distt. Janjgir—champa (C.G. ) . PLAINTIFF “Q2. State of Chhattisgarh g Through - ‘collector, Janjgir- champa (C.G.). wGH CGURT OF CHHAH$GARH AT BILASF’UR $inqle Bench: Hon’hle Shri Justice Prashant §(umar Mishmu Semnd Ameai “0.3191 39M ~ §PPELLANTS ’ Dhan $ail and athefs. BEFENDANTS Versa$ REaPGNBENTS Rukhmani gai and anathe Shri Malay Kumar Bhamri, counae! far :he appellant's. 8hr? R‘L Ba}pai, Advocate appearmg on behaif of Shri KM. Ansari, caunsel for fespomtent No.1. ’ Shri Sanjeev Agrawai, PL. for the Statefrespondent M12. SECOND APPEM. ukmER SECTION 190 $F THE COEE 3F QWL PROCEBURE v' 0R§L0Rg£R _ (10.03.2om} Heard are admissien. {2} The Cnurts below have decreed ,the plaintiff$ wit far $peci€Ec perfnrmance of the agreement dtd. 30’“ June, 1992 (ExEH) it was me case of me plaintiff that in spite af executing the agreemem ELM? wiih m$peat to 1w acre iand nut of 3.6a acres fmm Khasra Ne. 358f2 and having feceived gaizamw- eut of the tutai sale cgmsideratEen a? Rs.25,90w—; the defendant No.1 refused ta execute the sake eeed wmpetléng him m Eile preeent suit. {3} The defendants Na. 1 t0 4 {aieed a defense that the wit land §e the jeint family property, therefme in me absence of any parmiee er ‘ eansent irom ether co-sharers the agreement entered ,into by the defendant N01 cannot be specifrcaky perfermed‘ They alse raieeé rhe ‘ mea that the subject agreement was m fact a man rraneactierr and a§e0 ”that the defendant Ner had not at a“ entered inte an agreemeni. n {4} 0n the basi$ of ev'ndence adduced by me iaartieg, mare particmany ihe statemems of PW/2 Jairam Singh, whee is atta5t§ng witnss m Ex. PM, the'mal Court as welt as the feyst apellate 60w: h ‘ XP nd tha ev‘ §€ tha propertieg belcmgs to the juint family khe defendant Na hat§ the Fight m eeaute an agreement with respect ta Ms mare in me suit pmperty. This paint was speci1§ically daak with by the tréai x e p as cancurrently iound Ehat ihe E/1 is nut a loarx transaction a t eE i x Cam by framing issues N0. M & 15 ta haw» ihaa Hindu cgpener sa entgar inta an agreement for ’sake of his undivided share in tha carcenery property, therefore the defense rai$ed by the defendank ha o suhstante in iaw. ve n {5) he to Courts beiow have recarded sonsun’ent finding ais’m ihe appeiiani. On perusal of the record ihis Court dae$ not fid ny ergo: in approach {it ihe method af marshaliing avidence by the gauiig beiaw whiie gewiding the findings again5t the appeiiant. The finciirigis i'ecomeé by the Coma; below are pure finding 9i iact. They da not $uffer imm any infirmity in iaw oi perversity. ¢ {5) NO subsianiiai questinn of iaw arisen fer cieierminatien in inie appeaL The eecend appeal therefore iaiie anti is hereby eiemieeed. ' sci/— Prashant Kumar Mishra W Judge . t arc n pa T w gg n a