/ ^ ^- COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT_BJLASPUR Before: Hon'bie Shri Justice Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh Second Appea! No.48/2003 Ajuram and others VERSUS APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS PL&.i-NTIFFS Hathiyarin bai and others fry^U^- Post for Jy^Qinent: "^) -07-2007 Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 0 09 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Singte Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dllip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ^ ApDeljants Defendants Second ApoeaS No.48/2003 1. Ajuram, aged about 22 years, son of Sudharam, 2. Babuia!, aged about 23 years, son of Sudharam. 3(a) Mu. Mehatarin aged about 40 years, Wd/o. Sudharam 3(b) Deleted 3(c) Seeta, aged about D/o Sudharam 3(d) Geeta, W/o Dashar, aged about 22 years. Residence of Lohandangiya, Tah. Nawagarh, (before minor, now major) 3(e) Sukha, wife of Ram Kumar, aged about 25 years, residence of Khera, Tah. Nawagarh, Viiiage-Saraipaii, (Previously minor now major) 3(f) Asuwa aiias Aswant Kumar, son of Shri Sudharam, aged about 19 years, residence of viilage- Tohdikampa, Tah. Nawagarh, (Previously minornow major) 4. Chhotku, aged about 32 years, Sumani. Respondents PSaintlffs 5. Versus Deleted AII are agriculturist, residence of Tohadi, Tah. Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattjsgarh) 1(a) Hathiyarin bai, Wd/o Uderam Kenwat, aged about 60 years, residence of viliage- Tohdikampa, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (CG) 2. Devnath, son of Ramprasad, aged about 45 years. 3. Ghurauram, son of Jnda!, alias Banwall, aged about 28 years.! t^^r 4. Narottam Prasad, son of !ndai, alias Banwaii,aged about 25 years. Ail are residence of viilage Tohdikampa, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (MP) 5. Birjhabai, aged about 35 years, wife of Paltu, residence of Lamti, Tash. Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur. 6(a) Rameshwar, son of Bisoha Kenwat, residence of viilage Tore, P.0. Tore, P.S. Dharsinwa, Distt. Raipur (CG) 6(b) Baila, son of Bisoha Kenwat, residence of village Tore, P.0. Tore, P.S. Dharsinwa, Distt. Raipur (MP) 6(c) GotarhJnbai, wife of Shiv caste-Kenwat, residence of Manhora, P.S. Simga, Tah. Simga, District Raipur (MP) 6(d) Panna, son of Bisoha Kenwat, residence of viiiage Tore, P.0. Tore, P.S. Dharsinwa, Distt. Raipur (MP) 7. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Coiiector, District Durg (C.G.) Second Appeal under Section 10G of CIvjj Procedyre Cade, 1908. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for the appeiiants. Shri Kunal Das, counsei for the respondent No.4. Shri Akhii Agrawai, P.L. for the State/respondent No.7. O RD E R (Passed on^-07-200T) Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counse! for the appeliants/defendants v^as heard cn admission. (2) The appellants/defendants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 09-10-2002 delivered In Civi! Appeai No.159-A/2002 by the Addjtional District Judge, Bemetara whereby the defendants appeal v/as dismissed whiie af¥irming the judgment and decree passed by the Civll Judge, CIass-1, Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 12S-A/1982 vide judgment 9.4.1984 granting decree of possesslon and mesne profits in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. | •A^ .^ ^ r- (3). Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that Budan was in exciusive possesslon of the suit land. Thls also finds support from the testimony of Blsahat, defendanfs witness No- 4 in para 4, A concurrent flnding has been recorded that Budan and his wife Kunwar Bai had transferred the suit land by two sale deeds 30-4-1974 to piaintJff-Narbadiya Bai and had delivered possession» Both Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that dld not execute Ekrarnama Ex. P-1 in favour of Sudha Ram- !t Is not in dispute that Sudha Ram did not flle any suit for specific performance of contract, if any. (4) The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based cn proper appreciation of evidence orai as weil as documentary. No substantla! question of law arises for deterrnination in this appeal. The appea! isaccordingiy dismissed at the stage of admisslon. ^ Tumane (5) in vlev^ of above, l.A. No. 2171/2003 v^hich is an appjlcation for condonation of delay In payment of P.F., M.(C).P. No. 814/2004 for continuation of interini order, JVI.(C).P. No. 1446/2005, appiication for grant of stay under Order 41 Ruie 5 of CP.C., and I.A. No. 2995/2003 stand dismissed. ' Sd/- DyipRaosahebDeshinukh