.('^••"SiWi'EStCTTO??K?'SBKi'i%aTOiBN (^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Aooellant Plaintiff Respondents Defendants Hon'bfe Shri Di!ip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Second ApDeal No. 278 of 2008 Janki Bai, adopted daughter of Plan W/o Doriial Caste Gada, aged about 40 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o ViHage Narssh Nagar, Tahs.'t Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Sukwrara Bai, Wd/o Plan. aged about 78 yeare, Caste Gada, Occupation: Dependant R/o Village Naresh Nagar, Tahsil Sarangarh District Raigarh (CG) 2. Sfate of Chhattisgarh Through: District Coliector Raigarh (CG) Second appea! under Order 41 RuSe 1. uhder Section 100 of CPC. Present: Shri U.R. Koshaley counsef for the appellanVpiaintiff. Shri G.D. Vaswani, G.A for the State ORAL QFtDER (Passed on 04.08.2008) Heard on-I.A. No.1 Tor condonation of delay of 22 days in filing thisappeai. (2) For the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.1 is allowed .Delay in filing this appeai is condoned. (3) Heard on admission. (4) Being aggrieved by the judgment sind decree dated 29.03.2008 passed jn civil appeal N0.4-A/2007 by the Additional District Judge, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28-02.200.7 passed in civil suit No.108-A/2006 by the Civil Judge, Class-11, Raigarh, whereby the suit for declaration of titte and II (i 1 '9-. possession over the suit land was dismissed, was affirmed, the unsuccessful appellanVplaintiff has preferred this second appeal. (5) The appeilant/plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and possession was founded on an 'ikraarnama' allegedly executed by respondent No.1 Sukwara, whereby she had taken the appeilant/plaintiff in adoption. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to establish execution ofthe said 'ikraamama'by respondent No.1 Sukwara. (6) Learned counsei for the appellant did not chaltenge their finding in this appeal. (7) In this view of the matter, tearned counsel for the appeilant has not been able to make out any ground for admissions^ this appeal, Thus, no substantiai question of iaw arises for determination of this appeal. (8) Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed af the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya ^,