HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT DEFBNDANT RE80NDENTS PLAINTIFF« SECOND APPEAL No. 69 OF 3009 Maniram, S/o DuMutram Sahu, aged about 53 yeare, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o ViUage Mohaaittha, TahsU Berla, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Madho, S/o Bhagwaiu Sahu, aged about 63 years, Jamunabai, Wd/o LaUa Sahu, aged about 43 years, Girdhar, S/o LaUa Sahu, aged about 28 years, Krisrma, S/o LaBa Sahu,aged about 26 years, Lekhu @ Narayan, S/o LaUa, aged about 24 years, Anusuiya, S/o LaUa Sahu, aged about 27 years, Pilaraia, S/o Bh^wani Sahu, aged about 38 years, Balram, S/o Bhagwani, aged about 38 years, Udhi, S/o Sukhit, aged about 60 years. Khubi, S/o Sukhit, aged about 60 years Khowa, S/o Sukhit, aged about 57 years, Budhram, S/o Sukhit, aged about 54 years Devcharan, S/o Sukfait, aged about 50 years, Neinu, S/o Siikhit, aged about 45 years, AU occupation -Agriculturist, R/o Village Mohbhattha, Tahsil Berla, Distri.et Durg (C.G.). Indirabai, W/o Manu Sahu, aged about 35 years, Occupation Agriciilturist. R/o ViUage Matra, Tahsil Saja, District Dui^ (C.G.). Heerabai, W/o Sautosh Sahu, aged about 32 years, R^o Vfflage Daiigamya, TahsU Berala^ District Dm^ (C.G.), Deenaram, S/o Tularam Sahu, aged about 41 years, Bisram, S/o Katik Sahu, aged about 33 years, , Res. No. 17 & 18 bofh are Resident of Village. Mohbhattha, TahsU Berla, District Duig (C.G.). State of Chhatdsgarh, Through: fhe E>- •Z-- CoUector, Duig (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCDURE, 1908. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T-P.Sharma, J.) Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A. forthe State/respondent N0. 19. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 30/7/2009) 1. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 29/11/2008 passed by the Additional Distorict Judge (F.T.C.) Benitara District Dui^ in. Civil AppealNo. 6-A/2008 afRrming the judgment aad decree of the declaTatiou aud partition of the suit laad passed by Second Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Bemtara dated 8/5/2008 in civil Suit No. 40-A/2006, 2. The judgment aad decree is chatlenged on the ground that coitrt below has not considered the facts that present appeUaat was in possession ofproperty since 1950 aud perfected his titlc. 3. The short facts giving rise to fhis appeal is that accordiag to fhe case of fhe plamtiff laud iu dispute fhe pond was owned and possessed by one Aaaada who died leaving behind his 5 sons. Present appeUant is a son of deceascd son of Anaada namety Dukhitram Sahu. The present respondentsNO. 1 to 8 are chiklren of fhe deceased Bhagwani fhe greant graiid children's of deceased Ananda. The present respoitdents No 1 to 8 had filed'the suit for fheir 1/5 share over ffae property left by deceased Aitauda for declaration aad partition, The siiit was contested by fhe present appeUant Mauirain on the ground that suit laad was in fhe possession of his father Dukhitram. siace 1950 aad he was owuer of the property but iUegaUy n$me of hls ofher brofhers werc mutated in the Revenue Record. . .SS'pVi^, A ~'-1^ x-;"-<a*. ''»-. ^ ^ ^....^. "^. is 'ISSSB^i. fc K '"WSSS^ ;; p ^•..-.,.^ ^ "^ ••SSES: <\/ Afier affording fhe opportunity of hearing to fhe parties learaed Civil Judge Class -2 has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents No. 1 to 8 aud \ sanie was afiBnned in the appeal vide judgiaent aud decree impugned, 4. Leamed counsel for fhe parties are heard. 5. Leamed Counsel for the appeUaat vehemently ar^ued that property ia question was owned and possessed by Dukbitram father of fhe Maairain aad after the death of Dukhitram. present appeUaut is ia possession as a property luutated in the naine ofofher brothers ofDuMiitraia is Ulegal. 6. Judgtnent aud decree impugned and records of courts below perused. Ex. D-1 document reveals that Sukhit son of Ananda aad son of other brothers of Dtikhitram had executed fhe agreenient ia favour of the present appeUant aad by agreement they have aufhorized to present appeUaat to contest the suit on their behalf they are share holder of the suit land they wffl pay the cost ofthe suit and iffhey will not pay the cost of fh.e suit then they wiU not entitle for auy in.terest over the suit property, Ofher defendaats have flled fheir written stateiuent whcre they have pleaded fhat fhey had relmquished fheir right over the properly. These pleadiugs aud Ex. D-1 agreement is sufficient to prove the fact that aUeged property was jom.t family property aad respondents N0. 1 to 8 are having 1/5 share over the properly. The courts bekiw has r^htly decreed the suit aud dismissed the appeal, I do not find any substaatial question of law for consideration ofthis appeal. Consequentiy, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby disinissed. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge vm-^ '.,•.: •:-:^.-"'.:.;.:s": -..^sffS^'^s^'iSSSSS^SSSKSi^vssaiaa^s&a^a