WW 1L3 TEE HIGH COUTI‘ (335‘ CHHATTIbGNiB AT 51Lf§$ “UR ”may Mummwums m..m*ww Maw mmwuwwmmwuuw §§§mgm mmmw .m “LELJBEO §ngig gawk Ram Lakhan, $on ojE 3mbharam, ageé abavk 36 yeam, msi§ent Qf village z Kanéhanpur, Li’olice Statior: : ?remnagar, Tahsil z $urajpur, bistt a $urguja ( f: G }. \ a r 2W ”LLmN'IZ LEE ‘fDAJ’I‘ I $§Lm§i§m3é : Vigni, Wife o£ Lalgai, ag‘aa ' /’ abeut 46 years. resic‘iantof villaga : I‘tanchanpur, olice $ta‘ci0n g iaremnagar, ”ah 71 z ‘ S-urajpur. Distf; : EurguJa {CG} .1 w Comm;WS/ 1 I { mamhmm’f ‘ ummW \ l AK “m vyww ‘ / 2. augeghwaz‘; aged about sax: 40 yeaxs, at" nmrsai, msic‘lent Gama. g; 0f village : Evianchanpur,‘ ‘E’olice é E ’W"\ $tation‘: Premnagar.‘ Tahsil : ‘i-I‘ ‘ ® /; i l §3§ Eurjpur, bistt : Surqaja (CGL 6W ?.“‘ ‘xaé‘aq w\$‘ (N5 i "3.. r ‘ v PEI‘ORKbmUM 01v M’ .M: UmLR $E€3TEGN 100 (51" Tm " “um C0133 OP CWIL rROCuiliUQE, 1908. uuuwmumuu valu a 2 ‘ r ~‘/ ’ Asa m”..mw..~-;..L_.mmm. ”WM.” W ‘ rm €561“ Court f e m: dfxl §‘ aa puc uhe 1mm}: Goa; W«Wmwn_wm_.mmmm.mum...” ‘ y x;« 1 &‘ qw ' V ... 6 Sihgie $ench: ‘HIGH COURT Hdn’5ie OF Shri CHHATTISGARH J§stice Piashani AT Kama: BILASPUR Mishra Sacond Appeal Ne.44 i 2&94 APPELLANT Ram Lakhan - ‘ Versus E SPONDENTS r Vign? & anatha. R In5hr? 'V K Pandey, esounse! for khe appeilant. SEGQND APPEAL UN§ER SECTieN 109 OF THE CGDE GF CNIL PROCEDQR‘ 4 ORAL QRaER (12.07.2310) "‘ Heard on admission. Q2) ? The twa Ceurts new»? have decreedr the p!aintiff’s wit to? I Cgiec‘avation and permanent injunction. it was chimed by the maintm ’tghat‘the saiedeed dated 62—934 §EQ execmed by hemaw in faveur :3? :t‘he defendant No.1 be des§ared nuR and yaw and the defendant Na} be restrained frem tendering inte ha? preperty and inter€ere in he: p0€$&$$!0§3 . 3} ’ Case af the p£ainti€€ was that she is res§dent of chirmii’i arad u$ed t s wedt Kanchanpur where the sat iand as iwated Psi; she wee not hawng an ‘seue and was pertumed the deferdant Ne ° euggeeted her to contact the defendant Ne Happeuant whe as an expert an treating true kmd e? pmbiem by means of pertermmg rehgmue nghte and ntuate and- ere are chances that she may get an rseue by the rehgreus eremonree amt meats perfermed by the defendant No 1 tn eeuree 9f reatrnent the defendant Net rnfermed the etamtrff that rf ehe denatee ’e prece at tenet te the deny he wtt’ be eucvesefut an getting an teeue and hereafter (3n the pretextet execution 0t gift deed in faveur of deity the ' pefendant Ne t got executed the eate deed an hie awn name ? "\ inflnned her that the muse and kitchen garden ha$ beep, recurded én the name af‘ defendant NéA. The $u§t was thereafthr med an 21 1 041 994. {5} According *a the defe‘ndant the sa!e deed has beeh executed a}! . thelplamtiff aftar receiving the amcunt af camideratien and at the ime hm .atren beeauee the ptamtrff was in poseeeercn the ereperty ann ehe‘eame te know abeut the execehon at the sate deed in December 199$. (Z?) ; The que ton as ta whether any document has been execnted by the part" becanee at mtsrepresentahnn and fraud as a pure questten at f fect‘ Both the Courts have a eencurrentty feund that the defendant Netiagpeuant has mreregreeented tn the pteintift at the time of _ execiut'ten a? the dacument and thai §e§eving gm the misrspresentatian the ‘psak‘tiff executed the dacument treatiag it *9 be as a gift d$&d §P ‘avei r 6t the den“ whereas an test the defendant he t get executed the sate deed tn hie awn name i (4), ¥€ was farther 3tated by the piaintiff that after gerforming me religious rights ahd ritua‘s she was breught ta Sura}pur where the ex cution 9€ the dacumem tank plana. Hewever, later an the! Revenge O fcefs came t9 har muse in December, 1993 fa? maasLérement am! a. 1 I , hf ekecutien a? the saie—deed $he was aways hf this fact and has put signature Out 0t her ewn free wtl! and witheut any wereten er fraud; her (6} i gonlLmrwntiy hem! that the sa!e deed dated G2 G3~1989has been r executed by the ptatnttft by behevmg the defendant Net and that at is an outceme of fraud and merepreeentattan ptayed by the defendant The trial Court as wet! as the first appettete Ceurt has Nay an the ptamtrff. tt has atse been teund that the suit is within t @, “3., {@;1 I The finéingg recerdéd by thé Courts bemw are pure funding af i 4 fatit which came! be interfered with in exercise 3f jurisdistiw undar S ctiOn 199 of CARS. ; {9 The Hon‘bie Supreme $euri in the case ef Stafe Eank a! maiia an ethers Vs. s.N.Gayal, (2mm) 8 56C ‘92 has iaid down the principie as te whet is substantiai quesiien of iaw. Appiying the said piincipie in the fecte ane circumstances ef the present ease this Ceurt does set finiiu eny substantiai questien ef isw eiising in the appeai fer delerminatien. As a weatt the present appeei under Seetion, 199 ef i i C.P.C.Jaiis and is hereby dismissed. i i l i i 1 i i i x i v i i i§f ”my—w Yrash'ant K‘m‘a‘ M‘s“ i Judge //// -«~J~ l i