^- ^.-- - ,:S.^..J IN THE HON/BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.^ SECOND APPEAL N0. 10 OF 2011 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF Ambika Prasad Son of Panchuram Vishwakarma, aged about 46 years, Resident of Dampara, ;>" ,,^..>'' ^r Ambikapur, District Surguja ^•y^ 4^ RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Panchuram Son of Bihari Lohar, aged about 78 years, 2. Amrita Devi Wife of Panchuram, aged about 69 years, 3. Jaiprakash Vishwakarma Son of Panchuram, aged about 31 years, All are residents of Behind Women Hospital Darripara, Town Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 5. Suko D/o Pande Gond, aged about 61 years, Resident of Dampara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). ^^^. A 6. Dr. Vedram Singh Son of Late Ghasiram Singh, aged about 46 years, Caste Kanwar, Resident of District Hospital Premises Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 7. Dr. Ravishankar Singh Son of Shri Sabalsai, aged about 34 years, Caste Kanwar, Resident of Village Khaddhowa, Police Station & Post Batauli, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 8. Smt. Sunita Gupta Wife of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, aged about 41 years, Caste Patwa, Resident of Girls Premises Road, Patpariya, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 /f. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 10/2011 APPELLANT Ambika Prasad Versus RESPONDENTS Panchuram and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Ku. NehaVerma, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri G.D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (15-2-2011) '," 1. Heard on admission. 2. Instant plaintiffs appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-2010 passed by IVth Additional District Judge (FTC), Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No. 7- A/2010 whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2010 passed by the IVth Civil Judge Class II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 46-A/2006 has been affirmed and appeal has been dismissed. Facts of the case in brief are as under:_ 3. Appellant/Plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents/defendants. As per plaintiff, the suit property was purchased in the name of karta of the family i.e. father and mother from joint family funds. He is a member of the joint family. Defendants No. 1 and 2 i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 have sold and are still selling the suit property to others without there being any legal necessity and without consent and permissionof the plaintiff. 4. Written statement was filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3 and it was pleaded that the suit property was purchased in the year 1971 and 1974 i.e. at the time when the plaintiff was a student and was hardly of the age of 10 to 12 years. The property was purchased by the defendants No. 1 and 2 from their own funds and they are absolute owner of the suit property and the plaintiff has no locus standi in the suit. Other grounds were also raised. The suit was dismissed mainly on the ground that the plaintiff is notco-owner of the suit property and the property was not purchased fromjoint family funds. 5. Plaintiff preferred first appeal. Learned first appellate court on re-appreciation of entire evidence also affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below. 7. A bare perusal of the evidence recorded in the case and the fact that the plaintiff was minor at the time of purchase of suit property, would show, the suit property was purchased by the parents in their own right and not from any joint family funds. The plaintiff was minor at that time. It is well settled that a person can dispose of his self-earned property in any legal manner and the son has no right to challenge such sale. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality, perversity or absurdity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. 9. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any , substantial question of law which may arise for •:^—.;1.It "^ 1 \.'.-... ...^;" -^' '^^"" .y determination in fhe case. In the absence of any substantial question oflaw arises for determination ofthis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 10. In view of above, since no substantial question arises for determination of the case, the appeal is dismissed. 11. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge '?«