Trg' 11 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BELASP'UR {CHHATHSGARH} swmsm APPEALNG. 929/ ()1; 2003 7U 11 amenan, S/a ariagu, ‘ Agai abau‘t —ry y6ar3, Cagia Ganda, R€si ‘ant cf Viilage Champa, Tah‘ aarijgir, u1stt. aliaspur. Budhkumwar S/ o Sukh b). SECQNL) AFFEAJ‘J UNDER SECTmN 160 GF CGDE OF CWIL PROCEDURE, 1908 36v, Casis Ganda, Rio f, 0f Village Chalnpa, Tah. Janj§r, Di “it. BliaSpur. V E R S U S RESPONDENT/ /BLAINTEFF Sudharam, S/o Laxman (ff " Prasad y€ars,éae;ts aged Ganda, abeut R/g 4: Village Champa, Tahsil Janjgir, Bistt. Bilaspur. ~59 XI-Hc-zz mm,mm .Wm mm‘ 8- m -No;..2..a§403200 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawa] Heard on admission a1 Appeliants/ defendants relan'ves. P1ain11'E iiled a sui defendants stating that the Chaitu @ Sukhru who mom Laxman on 14/01] 1941 anc" Poorm'ma. Chaim @ Sukh 24/ 11/ 1941 by sale deed Laxman for due coneideratic defendant No. 1 Laxman a] After some nme with cons also started-living in the su:.t house. The plaintin‘s father Laxman died on 19/ 08/ 1977. After the death of Laxman, plaintid inherited the suit house who needs the said house for his bona nde -requi1ement. that defendant No.2 inves house, as such the house b‘ Court, after evaluating the whole Lealned lower evidence, held that plaintijf is the owner of the suit house and the same illegally and accordingly Agglievcd with 'tiggrsaid decision defendants defendants axe occupying decreed the suit. , Counsel for the appellants. Ld M.C.P.No.797/ 2003. and respondent/plaintin' ale near t for recovery of possession again st the suit property was earlier owned by gaged the suit land to plainh'd‘s father _ promised to redeem the land by Chait ru failed to redeem the land and on transferred ownership in favour of in. In the year 1977 at the request of lowed him to live in the suit house. ant of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 Defendants denying the suit averment, submitted ted amount for purchasing the suit ilongs to him. Hm.“ .wwwi .. . , 7, (@W) m mmw V imm§wm %3T%Ifan%3r 22l06l2005 XI-HC~22 mas! mm mm mmm pmfermd Civil Appeal No.34- WW§MW ésmm -A/ 2002 and the appellate Court vide judgment and decree date& 13/03/2003, after‘evaluau'ng fthe evidence, con&med the mlc the appeal. During argumeIiLt, lealned counsel appean'ng for the 0th the Courts below decided the lis ments EX.P/ 1 and P./2 inadmissible ubstan11'a1 question of law involved in appellants contended that bi relying on unregistered docq in evidence and this is the d this second appeal. Ex.P/ 1 is a mo favour of father of the p12 Rsxv‘IOI- horn the father of property; The documen 14/01] 1941. Thereafter Ch property in favour of Lama Rs.10/- and stated that he h 14lOl/ 1941 when the mot with delivery of possession, therefore, the sale executr pmvision of Section 54 of th that, defendants have no Chaitu is defective or does not confer title on Laxman the father .ing of the lower Court and dismi5sed mtgage deed executed by Chaim in intiE whereby Chaitu took a loan of ' the plaintiE and mortgaged the suit t EXP/1 had been executed on aitu executed a sale deed for the said n on 24/ 11/ 1941 for consideration of lad already handed over possession on tgage took place. Sale accompanied ’ has been made for a sum of Rs. 10/ —, ;d by Chaitu does not violate the e Transfer of Property Act. Apart hum t pleaded that the sale executed by a (whaeie‘‘a) XI~HC-22 ma mm WWW Ncither Chaitu not any of hi of these documents. is the title holder of the sui‘ unauthorized possession of t Taking into ooxi findings of both the Courts h counsel for the appellants, I question of law is involved i second appeal is liable to dismissed. Consequently, Ml Both the Courts below have concurrently held that plaintiE : property and the suit property is in he defendants. of the plaintih‘. Mortgage is there and thereafter sale deed has been executed by Chaitu in fihvour of father of the plaintin' Lakfhan. s Iepresentatives has challenged both V.K. Shrivastava {11 7 Judge (ditt‘r‘a’a) Sd/- sideration all the facts of the case, telow andthe arguments advanced by am of the opinion that no substantial n this second appeal. Therefore, the be dismissed and is accordingly ‘c.P.No.797/ 2003 stands dispgsed of. r