@ Myl/é IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL NO- W] /2006 Singie Eeaéh" APPELLANTS. (Defendants) RESPONDENTS (Plaintiffs) o‘x Dhanesh Ram Patel 8/0 late 'Shri Kartik Ram. Patel, aged about 46 years, Smt. Sukhabai Wd/o Late shri Kartik Ram Patel, aged about 64 years, Both resident of Village Magarlod g Tahsil—Kurud, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) ChhabiRam Patel S/O Shri Ramadhar Patel,3aged about 30 years, Rekhabai Patel D/o Shri Ramadhar Patel aged about 21 years, Raju Patel S/o Shri Ramadhar Patel, aged about 19 years, Respondent No.1 to 3 Resident of Village- Kurushkera, Tahsil—Rajim and Dist.Raipur (C.G.) Ishwar Patel S/o Shri Phulel Patel, aged about 26 years, Ku.Ishwari Patel D/o Shri Phulel Patel aged about 2O years, Preetam Patel S/o Shri Phulel Patel aged about 18 years, respondent No. 4 to 6 at present residing at Village Bhothidih Tah. Kurud Distt. Dhamtari, (C.G.) Vishnu S/o Phulel aged about 17 years\ minor Through legal guardian eldest brother L Ishwar Patel S/o Phulel R/o Village Bhothidih Tah. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) r ‘ \ \ \ ‘ SECOND APPEAL U/ S 100 OF CIVIL PROCUDURE CODE. l‘: '. State of Chhattisgarh throUgh Collector Dhamatari Dist. Dhamarati (C.G.) «K oaio4/2oos W . - On a mantion being mack Shn‘ R.S. Patel, Counsel £ Shn‘ G, D, ' Vaswa respondentNo.8/ State. Nana for other responden Heard on admission and t Veersingh and his wife S suit 9mperty. They diod leavip Smt. Suraj Bai, Smt. Budhyari Bai and Budhyarin Bai digd le 7lplajntjEs. ReSEmndents No, , the case is takan u}; for haarin‘g: yr the appellant. n1, Govt, for Advocate ts. m MIC.P:No, 112/2006._ mt Sukhabai were owners of the g behind threedaughters namely r1 Bai and Smt. Sukh Baj. Suraj aving behind respomients No. 1 to 1 to 7lplaintjEs oled a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 'AppeHantS'derlied the claim and gleaded that they ax since long 30 — 35 years. Res living in seyarate village. They x Ailer appieciating the evi that suit‘land was owned by Veersingh and his wife, their d: Smt. Budhiyan'n ‘Bai and Smt. Respondents No. l to 3 are Iesaoadents No. 4 to 7 are leg e in aossession over the suit land pondents No. 1 to 7!}Qlaintins axe Lever cultivated the disputed land. dence both the Courts below held After the death of tughters namely Smt, Surai Bai, Sukh Bat inhen'fed the property: legal heirs *of Smt. Sm‘aj Bai, ;al heirs of Smt. Budhyai‘in Bai, Veer Singh. K ,’ 1r ti‘ W [@éfe‘a XI-HC-ZZ ‘ #1,P daughter.a_ Sign, Sukh Bai and er son (appellant) axe alive, Both me Courts below hald that ea h 6f the daughters is sntitlad fer 1/3rd share 'of the suit land. d trial Court dismissed the suit oul'f'oft thfi/gmund that prays for {Jossession has not been made ' in 1:116‘ plaint. Tharsfore, res onderits‘ No. 1 t0 7 pmferred an appeal bearing Civil Apyeal N ’. 28-A] 2004. The appellate. Court clared the share as decided by the lower Court with a direction hat aiter partition the posses’siou shall he given to each of the olders Concurrent fmdmgs of both the Courts, below are that the appellants are entitled for only 1/3Id share in the suit property which they can get after partition by the revenue authorities. In my opinion no substantial question of law is involved in ‘thls ammal therefore, the appeal is liable. to be dismissed t aftar healing hoth' the. paltieg, summarily and 1s accordmoly dismissed. In the light of above onler M C P No 11’)! 9006 and IA Nos.349/2006 and 1062[2906 :tand disposed of i i Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge [new e e s h