HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Second Appeal No.208 of 2010 Chamara Ram S/o Shri Tiharu Ram Gond, aged about 60 years Occupation Agriculturist R/o Village Jamanala (Bijapur) Tahsil Kukrel Dhamatari and Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) Versus 1. A. Smt. Shailandri Bai Widow of late Paras aged about 50 years, Resident of village Piparchedi Post Bajar Kurrideeh Tahsil Kukrel Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) B. 'Shankar Lal S/o Late Paras Ram aged about 20 years Resident of Village Piparchedi Post Bajar Kurrideeh Tahsil Kukrel Distt. Dhamatan (C.G.) 2. Sawant S/o Late Budharu Ram Gond Resident of Village Piparchedi Tahsil Nagari Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) Asharam S/o late Budharu Ram Resident of Village Jhuratarai Tahsil Nagari Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) 4. Sunnaram S/o late Budharu Gond 5. Dwarsingh S/o late Budharu Gond Both Resident of Piparchedi Tahsil Nagari Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) 6. Mukwanteen Bai D/o Late Budharu Gond, Resident of Jamnala Tahsil Nagari Distt. Dhamatai-i (C.G.) 7. Tihareen Bai S/o Late Budharu Gond Resident of Jogideeh Tahsil Nagari Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) 8. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) {Second appeal under Section 1 00 of Civil Procedure Code} Present: Mr. R.S. Patel, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.8, on advance copy. ^^-p-x,.^ va ' ^-y Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL JUDGMENT (26-8-2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree 6f dismissal of appeal, dated 12-1-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No.20A/2007 affirming the judgment & decree of dismissal of suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, dated 5-1-2007 passed by the 2 Civil Judge Class-l, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.12A/2006. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.8, on advance copy, on the question of admission, perused the judgments & decrees and records of both the courts below. 3. As per original claim of the appellant herein/plaintiff, the disputed property bearing New Khasra No.291 area 6.03 hectares situate at Village Bijapur, Patwari Halka No.5, Tahsil Nagari, Distt. Dhamtari, was allotted to the father of the appellant herein, but erroneously recorded in the name of his uncle Budharu. As per the pleading, the appellant's father was sole owner of the property and was in possession of the property, after death ofthe appellant's father & mother, the appellant is in possession of the property as sole owner. The defendants/respondents have denied the adverse allegations. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-1 has dismissed thecivil suit, same was challenged before the lower appellate Court and by affirming the judgment & decree of dismissal of, civil suit, the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. 4. Tbis is not the case of succession or ancestral property, but as per claim of the appellant herein this is a case of lease or allotment of land. In absence of any document of allotment of property to father of the appellant, the only presumption would be possible on the basis of documents filed on behalf of both the parties that the appellant is co- owner of the property atong with other co-owners. While dismissing suit and appeal, for declaration of title as sole owner and permanent injunction, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality. Consequently, 1 do not find any substantial question of law for the ?»!!., decision ofthis appeal. The appeal is, therefore, liable to ^s-dt^missed and it is hereby dismissed, at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. g^ T.P. Sharma Judge