E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUg SECQND APPEAL N0. /^ t»—" f^ APPELLANT PMINTIFF ^. .J<' Tejrahn sbn of Late Rafan Lal Sahu, agect about 60 years, bccupatiQn - ^'''1^^^ Agriculturist, resident bf village Buclhbhdrdd, P© Arjuni, Tahil ^ ..••'* ^^d^?'*' / Dbngargabn, Distt. gajnandgdoh ^..^::A^^.>"^/'/< ,r-^\ - -^ ' \.^'*V<^,^ ' (^.fc7.j 'y^w' '"'' VEMUS gESPONDEN-FS 'DEFENDATNS ^ ^ Jhugaru sbn of Lafe Ratan Lal Sahu, aged abbut 5^ years, 2. Sdnfram sbn of Late Rafah Lgl, aged /-^-Q ^ ^yy .^^y 6- abput 65 years, Both are agriculturist, resident of villdge Bhundurbharda, PD Arjui, Tahsil Dongargaon, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG) 4^ Gdnpdt son of Lafe Rdfan Ldl Sahu, aged abbut 50 years, occupatibn serviee, resident ©f Ghikhli, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and Disfrict Rajnanclgaon (£.©.) Smt. Durmat Bai wife of NQrodlal Sahu, aged about 70 years, Qccupatibn h©use wife, resident ©f Tumdib©d, Tahsil Dongargaon, Distt. gajnanclgaon (C.©.) ^ ^ y ^ §. Sfate bf Chhdtfisgarh, fhrpugh the Disfrict CQltector, Rajnandgabn (C.©.) SBCOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1QO OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1j>Q8 k- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellant Respondents Second Appeal No.173 of 2007 Tejram ^^ versus Jhugaru and others Present: Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri R.N.Jha, counsel forrespondenfcNo.1.1 [ ^ .1 J Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.5. ^ Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd March, 2010) Heard on admission. 2. The plaintiff Jhagru Ram has preferred the suit for declaration of title, partition and allotment of1/^ share ahd possession of the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that in the family partition, the suit land had fallen in the share of Bodhanibai. At that time, it was agreed between the parties that whpSQeyer takes care of Bodhanibai and performs the last rites at the time of her death shall be entitled to the land belonging to orallotted to Bodhanibai. According to the plaintiff,since he and defendant No.1 Tejram have taken care of Bodhanibai during her.lifetime and.had perfprmedthe lastrites after her death, they are each entitled for Vz share in the suit lands. p»lrI !»,. ^ 3. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, stated that the plaintiff has never taken care of Bodhanibai during her tifetime and that Bodhanibai was residing with him and he alone has performed the last rites and as such he is entitled for the entire land belonging to Bodhanibai. 4. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff Jhagru Ram as well as defendant No.1 Tejram have taken care of Bodhanibai during her lifetime and have jointly performed the last rites and rituals after her death andas such the Courts below have decreed the suit by allotting Vz share to the plaintiff and the other Vi share to the present appellant/defendant No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire suit land should have been declared in the name of the appellant and the findings are perverse. 6. Having gone through the record, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the Courts belpw are not perverse. The appellanVdefendant No.1 himself has stated in paragraph 9 pf his cross-examination that the plaintiff had also participated in performing the last rites and rituals after death of Bodhanibai and the plaintiff Jhagru Ram had also attended the ceremonies at Allahabad for emersion of the ashes. 7. In view of this and in view of the fact that the findings are concurrent and they.are in the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court is not entitled to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in /exercise of powersunder Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ^ :'^^'^1%. ^ Gopal ^ 1908. There being no substantial question of law involved in this appeal, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ ^ h