r' ^> a IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. ^C^ Of 2005 SINGLE BENCH APPELLANT: PLAINTIFF Mem Lal S/o Kripa Ram by caste Kalar, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Nara, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 1. 2. 3. / Nohru S/o Kripa Ram, by caste Kalar, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village Nara, Tahsil Kanker Dist. Bastar (C.G.) Rameshwari D/o Kripa Ram by caste Kalar, aged 40 years, resident of village Tansi, Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (CG). Dhiru S/o Kriparam by caste Kalar, aged 45 years, Malaria Supervisor, resident of Village Sarwandi, Tahsil Kanker District Kanker (CG). 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Kanker, Dist. Kanker (C.G.) ^ / x-^co^ ^^^ o.^y" Radheshyam S/o Sita Ram Brahmin, aged 55 years, agriculturist, resident of Village Nara, post Banodar,Tahsil and District Kanker (CG). ^ i e' 6. Smt. Jamotin Bai D/o Mem Lal Kalar, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Nara, Tahsil and District Kanker (CG). >^!t' MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 XI-HC-22 3^ ^Trar^r, ^Tfrm?, [sidiy^ .^^^.^, WR^TTgWIW"'^^""^'^'^ ^[ 200 ^^......... 3TT^T^T f^TT^^T^T $h^icb^f^T W^T ^cTTW^T^T . Shri Vishnu Koshta, C.oi Heard.-.on a.dm.issioii ajfi.d Appella.iit/plaiiitiff filed 'suit laiid iii the yeaj- 19.88 a\/ sitxiated at village Nara al^out' .1| orighially belongs to 'Kri.pa Rai^ partitioiied .the prope^ and on Naj-a have. be.eu ailotted. to tbi coiitiuuous possessio.n of it.' Ij Nohni ••aiid Rasis.eshwari. denied | laiids were the joint • faiiiily p After the dea.th of.K.iipa'Ram^-1:] inherited . th.e • propei-ty and th| -i^veiiue i^cord.s',. . In 197-8 'fhe ] uuder "Duban", therefore, th.e peid the' com.pensa.tioir of Rs,2^ an.d all the three broth.ers recel signatures, They' are' JB. jo.m.t| 04/06/ 198.3 tlieir mother Smt.| partition aj-id on' tliat day-paTti{ ?bi^T<n41Ti <4i^<<iT^*tec^'<Ri<^i< ^^rf^T^n^T insel for the appeUajit, M.C.P.No.805/2005. i suit 'for declaration of title over .the enin^ that fhe •siiit.lao.d which is 3 acres aaid 20 acres at viUa.ge Taiisi Kripa Ram duruig his life 'time partition the land sit.uate-d.at villa.ge a plaiatiff who sHice then is in ;espon.dents/defe.ndaiits No.l aj.id 2 tlie claim on the ground that eJl tlie 'operty of their'father Kripa Ra^m. oth • the pl.aiD.tlff aiid the defendaiits xir 'iiaiiies have'been recorcled in aiids 'situated at village Tansi caine State GoveiTi.m.eiit' acquired it' and ,290.27 toplamtiffaad defendants [ved. the said • a.moiiiit ~by their joiiit posse.ssioii of tl.ie suit laiid, On Phulwa Bai convened a iixeeting for ion betezeeii the parties took place. Wf) XI-HC-22 3^ ^ll^lld^, ^Tfl^Ko, f®<^ii<iy ^Wdl ^Hl<»> 3n^q^^ ^l o r ^' 200 f^[< 3TI^T^T fN^^^r ^Rrf^;Hf?cf ^i^i^^iw^fer —1-.:7 ^Mld41^ ^|4dT^te^<Rl^K ^3Tf^T3T1^T Defeiidant No.2 DhiiTi Rani did not re.fute the claim of the plaio.tiffi Leaiiied CM1 Jud.ge,·· C]|as.s I, Kaiiker, after appreciation of the.orel evidence. • held that •plajin|:.iff got tlie suitlaiid-011 partitioii m. l-967.3 th.erefore.-decreed the] aiid 2 .Nohru. aucl Rsjiiesliwat jiidgm.ent and decree passed 1y Ka.nker, Lea_nied, Ist Additional appeal on 08/04/2005. First A{ airived.at by. the trial Court regaj and after fresh apprecia.tion of'tt|. 1967 in tiie Ufe tinie of Kri.pa R^ the appea]^ set asid.e -thejudg^ Coiirt on 11702/1996. Bemg ag[ dated 08/04/2005 pa.sse.d'by appeal has been prefeiTed by the siiit. in his favour, Defeiidaiits No. 1 p.- preferrecl a.n appeal against the the leariied Civil Judge, .Class I, |Distri.ct Juclges- Kanker decided the t)pellate. Coiirt held' th-at the &iding [.'diiig partition.m.' 1967 is/eiTone.ous .e evidence held that 110 paj.'tition "ni |iiii took place, Therefore.,. allowed |e.nt-.aiid decree passed by the trial ^ri.eved by the judgnien.t and decree I'he. • first appellate Coiirt^ second tolein.tiff, • • Admittedly, the laiids w^ Raiii and after his death the lao.dj re recorded .iii the'nanie of Kripa were niutated in fa.voiir of pleiiitilf [ti.U 1987'- 1988 in theu-joint ^ MeBi. L.a!., defendaiits Nos. 1 aj|]-d ^ Nohru aiid Dhini aiid their iiiother Phulwa Bai< As'per revei|iue record, tlie propei'ty continzied l.anies. Froai the record and 'the ^vidence, it is evident tli.at the la|icls sitiiated at village Tansi were XI-HC-22 (^ 3^ ^<l^ld4, ^Tnwt<o, Rl^tiy^ 3ii^ivi?icn ^'<4 2.6^] HTO€r((SibHI<h V^ 200^ 3TI^T^T ^ich3TliRT ^RW^rfi^T "k:. W^T^«llW^rf^T acquired by tlie State Govenim^i t.h.e • said . laiid liave been execilt joiiit.ly .by tlie pleiiitiff^uiiderlii^ paid by tlie'•St.at.e 'G-ovenimeiit. statement that on 04/06/'1983| Ts.asi zdid he aiid 'his two brofhbrs that 'iiieetm..g partition of the laji| '-oiade. He also adraits .th.at docl he . signed the saoie, AlthougJ talcen forcibly^ 'but. willful prese| pressure or forc'd. lnt an.d the documents traiisfemng ted in favour- of State Govenim.ent signature, Coiiipensation has been PtaiiitlfT admitted the fact ia. his a xiieetiiig-was convened at villa.ge were present in. the m.eethig, Iii ^. 'at. viJla.ge Tansi aiid Nara has bee.il tj.nieiit lias been prepared there Eoid h. he .says tha.th.is signatures were )..ce itself contradicts the fact of ejiy G-oveitiiiien.t The siiit la^nd was.recordl .Ijrothers, who. are :plaintiff aiid joiut Hindu faiTiily property. It faiiiity prope'rh', of all the thtee l^ acquired by ;the : 'State GoveniBj.e.nt, the documents ha^ his .13rotlie.rs. Tlie- plaiiitiff admi") 04106/1983. All the revenue r^ larid was uot paj't.itione.d iii ,1< There.fore, leaiiied fii'st'AppeUal evidence rightly held that iii th( .took place and the suit land- wa ?hNld4)^ ^mdT^te^iI^^K ^^rf^r^ST ?.d in the joiut .najiies of all the three |de-fendaiits. The seid property...was |is also evideDt tliat the joiot Hindii |roth:ers.situated at village Teiisi was In favour of the State |e beeli execzited by tlie plaJiitiff aiid |.s that partition proceediiig held .011 ^ords support the fa.et that the -'suit |67. or uearby but reiBaliied jouit, .{? Court. 011 diie -appreciation of the life tmie. ofKripa Raiii no partition |s not allotted to the plauitifF duriiig ^y^r) rs XI-HC-22 ^ 3^ ^i^id^, ^Tfl^Ko, R<nj<yy ^..35T.^.^ W^!TW^K"9""'""""""\W^ 200 ^ ^^T^T^)T ,rR-lJch 3TI^T ^ri^^f?cT $bH|cb ^ ^. '^ -^- ^n^T5^nw^rf^r the Ufe tim.e .Qf,.Kyipa; Rajii.^ LG£ commit aiy^ error iii settmg -^asic by. the trial Court, .•' "'"'Corisidfering. all fhe-faots •advsjiced diiriug-.-argument, BI£ record,;" I aBi-of.fhe opinion tl; imT'oIyes'.iii fhis appeal. . Th.e^ dismissed .and. ia^.accordingly. dis^ !n th.e Ilgbt of tlie at)c| I.A.No, 1503/2005 stand dispose^ ctii^I<rt41Ti ^i^<nT&tec^<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T .nied; first appellate Court .did';'Hot .e the juclgmeiit aiid decree passe.d raised 'm, me.mo of appeal, as we.U l.terial ejid evideiice availa.ble on 1-at no . substantial question of law ^fore,. the appeal is liable to. be Inissed, ve order; M.C.P.No.805/2005 and lof. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge