IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ^ IB SECOND APPEAL NO.^g^ /2006 i v 1 Appellant: ^ ^Narayan, S/o Ganga, aged about 47 /C^^^ ^0'^ years, Caste Panika, R/o Village Khuta-apara, Tahsil Surajpur, District Saraguja. Versus ^ •^•*".. ..•t^i n.' ^^'! JRespondents : 1). Bhagmaniya D/o Ramcharan ^ ^^Panika, aged about 50 years,. *<l " f^n;fe^ ^•-2) G10Z%dvRT;.s/^m^aged . . ^et^^N0-1 )J^/oManoharPanik.aged^^^^,- 4) Sundar Basiya Wd/o Manohar .^,u. isl:o.S» , Pamka,aged72years, — ,._-—-rt^ Note :- No. 1 to 4 R/o Village Khutrapara, Tahsil Surajpur, ff^ District Saraguja. j^f y^^v^l ^ ^ate ofchhattisgarh Through Collector, Saraguja, ^ Ambikapur, District Saraguja. (C.G.)-I>&^-^<U^ ^0'^' SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ^—--•-- ^ HtGii.COVjRT_OE_CHHATTiSG^HAT_S!LASPUR Shri Ho. 385 of Versus 0_RDE,R Postfor^s'-08-^510. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^^-08-2010 "~- ^^^' 'wiSississxsiis&i ;SliBii% HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hors'&je Shrl Jysfiee Prashant APPEUANT i Narayan Versus Bhagmaniya and othere. Shn Ratan Pusty, counseS for the appeitant. Shri Ajay Dwlvedl, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent No.5. 100 OF THE OF CIVIL ORDER l^ .08.2010i Heard. (2) Thts Is defendant's 100 of C.P.C. The trtal Court has the sutt after that the No.2^appeHant has hls tjtle by and the platntlffs' sutt ts barred by llmltation, however, the Firet has been adowed anct the sult has by the judgment and decree. (3) The preferred the sult for of tttte and tnjunctlon v»1hrespectto No.3 area 021 RA 52 dtemilt) at Surajpur, Surguja.' It was the of the that the su'rt land jolntiy to the father of No. 1 & 2 and PaniKa. The piatntlffe are the tftte of the sult land. On \ 05-03-1997 the No.1 Govsnd the land for oo?'!Stfuctlon of and the ptalntiff him to not to occupy" L.- .^ .^^.^ s<." 1 ^.. ^ ^x yy ^ ^ - s.- he that the No.2 has the to hlm. (4) The No.2 the and that th.e to anct the No. 2 & 3 are not related to this iand. He that has the to hlm and from the 1980 he is In and has He on the Ex.D/9 by the sald had sold the to the No. 2 for Rs.1400/-. He that In 145 of Cr.P.C. the has that he Is in of the sult (5) The trial Coyrt held that the not by Ramcharan and Manohar and that the ptalntlffe are not in of the sutt land. On the basis of defendants No. 2 & 3 for than 12 yeas the trial Court that he has hte tttle by (6) flrst 96 of C.P.C. has the Court by the and The Gourt has that the No.2 f has not and that in view of the un-regsstered and No.2 vide Ex.D/9 his on the sutt is of permtsslve and is not (7) Coynse? for the has that the of No. 2. on the sult tand Is to the and the >" / h,as been from the of ths / ^f£^ v '^..-" 'l i."^. -'5- admlsston made by plalntiff on the of Supreme Court in the of vs. aiicf In SC 553. (8) has hte on the ex.D/9 to that by thls had sold the to htm for Rs.1400.^- out of which 11 (X5/- to Ramcharan anc$ the remalnlng amount to be In thls document 1.1 Is by that he has the for Rs.1100/- to and the fc-e sybsequentty and. m the of hls his snall execute the sa'e-deed.. At the when thte do^cument exhtblted the objectton that the of Ramctiaran has to be In wlth law. The trial Court the to be a.t the of the of the trial Court has not thls in hls that Is his He that the Is by hlm. He that to hlm and had tie 'Rln Pust'Ra.' (record ot rlghts) to hlm. (9) In vlew of ctose the and the of document Ex.0/9 whlch Is an the by the first Court that the of the sutt te ss not True tt Is, that a to. the true but In the Is no in the as to /the whlch i.n the had -^- subsequentty become to the true owner. the are It is at$ the more for the to. the or he that hls has to the true owner. HO) On of the on record, thte Court not find any questson of Saw for determlnation In thls Gonsequently, ths tnstant and te at the ! • Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1<