AHDPELLANT /(P1amtift) /RESPGNDENTS (Defendants) U). "E 3ELASP€JR C G. =. SINGLE BENCH y Eaymuia 3/0 laée Ski Sajj&1 Sirzgh T‘akf by cast Gond, aged about 65years, resident of Village- Jhuniyapara Kanker, Tah. & District— Kanker (CG) ' \ N "EEEE HEQE €9URT {,‘E €£EEATEES§AREE SECOND AP?EAL N0. {K /2G{)=5. ‘efERSEJg Maiiuuaj ~r-.‘!« r Rain An.“ Tl€taf§ _ a: Si/v A Slifi a i HU€ :1,‘ kxiG , 1‘ vslil, ~ aged abeut 55 years. R/o Ihuniyapara, kanker, Tah. & Dist. kanker (C.G.) v ‘/l . {Ax} gm: iahmav‘fati Ta anvnv. n I EcVi . rm; Siiauua lan‘umn V V'Vés/U n la§€ n “Lv-i Ciiul Rajeshwar Shanna, aged about 45 years, 2. / . (B) Neeraj Shanna S/o late Shri Rsajeshwar $ham‘ia= 236d b abetit 25 ears. (9) Manoj SharmaS/o iate shri Rajeshwar (x Shanna, aged about 23 years. r’ 1'“) Pankaj Shauna S/o Eate shti Rajeshwar Shanna, aged about 20 years, No. 2A to D - resident of Village—Jhuniyapara Kanker Tahsi] ((5)6 :iiStfi€£i=Kaiikc1 KuJxJ .j MangtuRam Dhm S/o shri not known, aged about 50 years resident of Jhuniya para/ PHE. Officer (Meehanic), Kanker tahsi} & district Kanker (CG) Smt. Rajbati Wd/o Phoolsingh Gond, aged aboat 59 years, resident ef griirrryapara/ Barkai Post-Sarona, tahsil and district Kanker (C.G.) @ E A Ir" XI—HC—78 W,WW 17 i I ig/os/§, Hi 200 x WW§WW iv maxim WWW wmm mamm: /" '2 WW<W> E ’PEAL NO 1'15/2Q95 $E$QND M C) Dayaram Vewt s Manohar Ram Tekam , and others Shri RS. Patei sou use! for the appei!ant. 25.a.2596: 4,: Dhiyendm MishfaQL The appel!ant;’p!aintiff has preferr‘ed this second appeal under section 100 cf the Cede of Civi! Procedura against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baetar in Civi! Appea! No, 314V? OQ2 whereby the appeai preferred by the apparent/plaintiff againe’r the jJdgment and decree dated 31.7.2002 passed by Civi! Judge Crass H Kanker in Civil Suit Ne. :01-A/1986 has been dismissed and the jndgrnent and. decree passed by the learned Civii Judge dismissing ihe suit ofthe rlainiiff has been affirmed. ' i; “i \ 2. Learned counsel for th a appeilant submits that the suit for possessien ef the suit housetiler by the piaintiff was dismissed by the triai Court by recording a finding that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the owner 0f the suit house. The appiication fiied bythe plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CFC was also rejected whereby he had for permission to adduce additonal evidence, on the ground ti‘at" the document sought to be filed at tie appeilate stage pertains toa certificate issued in the year 197in72 in which it is mentioned that initially the house; X‘I-HC—78 EW,W,W m. .S.)4...L'.7.ST ”(zSo‘aq 200 Wm (WW) q maariiqi$ wmm mamm WW§WW @Wm _ was entered in the name o“ subsequentty changad as DineSx certmcate Ex P1 was m d by thererore no addltmnal avldencc He further submlts that the fvmdl judgment and decree‘of the ma! haye failed to consider that €he euit house situated cveLKhasr Khasra No. 4'50. Cougts begow evidence adduced by ihe plaim ‘he triai Calm as aiso of the ap avariable ow reco d and as s eepenant submits ihat the foiim adjudicaticm of ihis appeaL ' ed Court below was justified in not relying A) ‘Whethei' the !earr ibited by the plainti‘h with regards to the Dayaram eon of Sa§jan which was ‘1 son of Sajjan Thakur on the ground that the appellant before the ma! Court and as is sought to be filed Jag been filed ngs 0f the appellate Court confrmmg the Court are erroneous as the Courts below defendants are claiming ownership of the a No. 465/1, though the suit pertains to have also failed to consider the overatl ff during trial and as such the findings of pellate Court are contrary to the materiat uch perverse. Learned counsel for the ting substantial auesttons of law arise for h the documents e title of the plaintif B) Whether the learned court below has given perverse finding the appiioation under order 41 Rule 27 and not consideri atthe Geo?" ’ t have heard learned c records inciuding the judgme below. The trial our? alter obt the suit of the plaintiff/appellam unsel for the appellant and perused the and decree passed by both the Courts inmg the case on remand has dismissed by recordmg a frndrng thatthe plaintiff has x fl t g n XI-HC-78 9n ww,sdiwrs,i§amg£ Wm‘ $.Adf). ? l 1 __.3,. 1 53/05 i 200 f 1 mm(W) WWW WWW mm'wm WM£H§¢W $mm 94 as he haa admitted in his depcsi'tion ed over’the Abadi plot and he does not have the paiz‘a of the same. The a‘olvency certificate of Ex. P4 issued by the Municipal committee Kanker ertaining to House N0. 94 beionging to Dayaram is a5sessed for tax of Rs. 2000/— per annum but it does not mention’ the Khaera number on’w ich houee No. 94 is situated and except the ebove document no other doc Ament has been fited by the appellant to shot?! th’at the suit house is recorc ed in his heme though it is an admitted ‘factthat the tend in question is a Government Abadi land and On the contran/ the defendant has fiied he document being Khasre Penchsaia ‘ wherein wife of the defendant is . hown as a person in possession of the same. He has aiso fiied the doc ial and documentary evidence adduced 'e any interference in this appeai. Thus as preposed by the eounset for the ’ failed to prove that he is the ownei' of the suit property bearing Khasra No. ‘ 4‘60 area 20 decimal, House No. that the house in question situat ent being the electricity bill‘ water bill etc. with respect to the suit house and en these findings the suit of the plaintiff for possession has been d smissed. - The above findings recerdej by the couits below are the findings of feot and they are based on the o by the parties which do not req’ui no substantiai questions of law appellants arise for adiudication of this appeal and the appeal is liabie to be dismissed. it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itseiii Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.