HEGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHiBILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'b!e Shri Dillp Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appeliant Piaintiff ResDondents Defendaots ^^. Jagat Singh son Nandlal, aged about ' 41 yea.rs, Occupation" AgricuSture, Resjdent of VJiiage Taregaon TehsJJ Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) Versus 1. Shiv Singh S/o Hukum Singh, about 43 years 2. Maan Singh S/o Hukum Singh, about 30 years 3. SabaE Singh S/o Hukum Singh about 27 years Urrnllabal Wd/o Sher Singh Take Singh S/o Sher Slngh (c) Chltrabhavan SIngh S/o Sher Slngh (d) Rajnibai D/'o Sher Slngh, Sakainaan, Podi District-Kawardha Sati W/o Kesari viEEage Rajband Dlstrict-r^andaia (MP) Anusuiyabai W/o Ramswarup ViEEage Khamhi District-BIIaspur (CG) Durpatl W/o Ohmprakash Mandaja District-Mandaia (MP) Paurvati W/o NasndkJshore vHlage- Vokhara District Mandaia (MP) SVIeera W/o KUJdeep Viilage- TIRariya District Mandata (MP) 5. Vlshanuprasad S/o Bhanuprasad Pandlt aged about 60 years Occupation Agriculture - VIEIage- Pandatrai TehsJJ-Pandariya-Dlstrict- Kawardha 6. Peelabai VV/o Nandlai aged about 67 years Viliage-Taregaon TehsH- Kawardha District Kabirdham (CG) 7. Jot Ssngh S/o NandSal aged about 32 years Viiiage-Taregaon Tehsit- Kawardha District-Kawardha 8. Smt Kumaribai D/o -Khelan Singh aged about 40 years, viilage Bansapura Tehsil Bemetra, District Durg 9. Smt. Sumltrabal D/o Ramji aged 35 years Vliiage Podi Tehsii-Kavtfardha Distrlct-Kablrdham 10. Sfate of Chhattsi'garh Through-CoJiector, Kabirdham (CG) 4(a) (b) (e) (f) (9) (h) 0) rpfim Appeai under Section 100 ofC.P.C. 19.08^ Present:. Shri Ajit Singh, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Akhll Agrawal, PL for State. (Passed on 25.02.2008) This appeal is by the unsuccessfui plaintjff against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the 1st'Civil Judge, Class-E, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in civii suit No.20~A/1S98 by the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2006 and affirmed bv the District Judae, Kabirdham in civi! appeai No.5-A/2006 vide judgment and decree 29.11.2007. Both the Courts have, on appreclation of evidence, recorded a .finding of fact that in a partition, the suit land had fallen to the share of Hukum Singh and that .the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 were in possession thereof. (2) Learned counsei for the appeSlanVpiaintlif dld not dlspute th.at no documentaiy evidence was adduced by the appeilant/piaintiff, He argued that the concluslon drawn by the Courts below is erroneous in vlew of the oral evidence adduced by the a.ppeila.nt/pjalntlff. (3) Havlng considered the subinlssion of the iearned counse! for the appeilant, 1 ha.ve perused the judgment and decree passed by the.Courts below. ! am of the considered opinion that in view of the concurrsnt findlng of' fact recorded by the triai Court and affirmed by the lower Appeiiate Court that the appeiiant/pEaJntiff was not in possesslon of the suit !and which had faiien to the share of Hukum Singh and whlcii was in possession of the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 both the Courts below have deciined to .grant relief of deciaration of titie and permanent injunction to the appellant/piaintiff. No substantiai question of Eaw, therefore, arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordlngiy dlsmissed atthe stage of admisslon. (4) In view of the above, IA. No.1 for grant of ad-interim reilef aiso stands dismlssed. . i—<- Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge