HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH:^1LASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. S,A^No.^66of20Q5 Appellants : 1. Shri Gopal Chauhan, S/o Shri Jairam Plaintiffs Bhai Chauhan, aged about 45 years, Occupation Doctor, Caste Gujar (Gujarati) 2. Smt Maya Chauhan, W/o Shri Gopa! Chauhan, aged about 40 years, Occupation-House Wife, Caste Gujar (Gujarati) Both R/o Ambedkar Ward No.7 Gujarati Bada, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus ^ Respondents Defendaints 1. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Son of Indrapal Mishra, aged about 37 years, Caste Bhramin, Occupation Auditor, Resident of Radhi'ka Nagar, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, S/o Shriram Dubey, aged about 37 years, Caste-Bhramin, Occupation Service, Resident of Village Khadiya Pariyogna, Qr. No.B/422, Dfstrict Sonbhrad (UP) 3. State ofChhattisgarh, Through Collector Rajnandgaon Second apDeal underSection 100 oftheCPC Present: Shri Anup Majumdar, counsel for the appeilants. ORALORDER (Passed on 23.07.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.03.2005 passed in civi! appeal No.4-A/2003 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2002 passed in civil suit No.26-A/1999 passed by the Civil ^ (9 Judge, Class-1, Dongargarh, wherebythe suitfor a dectaration thatthe sale deed dated 27.1.1996 in relation to aportion ofland Kh.No.153 in area 1,250 Sq. ft. situated at Badhiatota, Ward No.6, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon executedby the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 in favour of the appellants/piaintiffs was got executed by fraud was dismissed. The appellant's suit was founded on the averment that the respondents had at the time of sale told him that the suit land i.e. land Kh. No.153 in area 1250 Sq. ft. was a lagani land. (3) It is not disputed that the respondents/defendants had executed a saie deed (Ex.P-1) in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the respondents/defendants had, at the time of execution of the sale deed, told the appeliants/plaintiffs that the land is Abadi land. Testimony of Jayshree Sakhare who also purchased an adjoining land out of Kh. No.154 on the same day from the respondents aiso substantiates the plea taken by the respondents/defendants. (4) !n my considered opinion, both the Courts below have on proper appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary, declined to grant relief to the appellants/plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya