HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS/; (Defendants) Second Appeal No.75of 2009 1. Umend Bai, aged about 55 years, 2. Suruj Bai, aged about 52 years, AppellantNo.l to 2 D/o Late Mangal Singh, Caste Gond, R/o Village Risda, Tahsil Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Mohtab Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Chhedi Singh, 2.A. Pushpa Singh, aged about 40 years, D/o Late Milap Singh, B. Madhubala Singh, aged about 30 years, D/o Late Milap Singh, C. Lallu Singh, aged about 28 years, S/o Late Milap Singh, D. Smt. Kuteli Bai, aged about 55 years, W/o Late Milap Singh, 3. Gulab Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Chhedi Singh, 4. Golan Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Chhedi Singh, 5. Bodhan Singh, aged about 50 years, S/o Chhedi Singh, All res. No.l tQ 5 R/o Village Pakariya, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. State of C.G., through the Collector, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Mantora Bai, aged about 50 years, D/o Late Mangal Singh, Caste Gond, R/o Village Pakariya, at present R/o Jhapeli (Balouda), Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (6.G.) •[Se'eond appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Presenf: Mr. F.S. Khare, counsel forthe appellants. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt, Advocate forthe State/respondent No.6, Sinaie Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma.J ORAL 3UDGMENT (25-8-2009) 2 T; Thissecond appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. isdirected against the judgment & decree dated 18-1-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Appeal No.7A/2007 affirming thejudgment & decree dated 9-5-2007 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-II, Janjgir in Civil Suit N0.229A/2006, whereby learned 1st Civil .ludge Class-II has dismissed the suit for declaration & possession of the suit land. 2, Judgment & decree are challenged on the ground that the Court below has not considered the fact that the present appellants are heirs of deceased Mangal Slngh and have succeeded the property after the death of Mangal Singh. 3. I haveheard learned counsel for the appellants & learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.6, perused the judgment & decree impugned, judgment& decreeof the trial Court and records ofthe Courts below. 4. Learned counsel forthe appellants vehemently arguedthat both the present appellants are daughters Qf deceased Mangal Singh who was owner of the suit land situated at Village Pakariya, Tahsil Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. After the death of Mangal Singh, the present appellants have sycceeded the property as heirs in Class I of the Schedule appended toSection 8 of the Hindu SuccessiQnAct, 1956 which is applicable to both the parties. Respondents No.l to 5 herein are in possession of the disputed property, therefore, they have filed suit for declaration oftitle and possession. Learned counsel further argued that father of the appellants has not executed any sale deed in favour of respondents No.l to 5 herein. S.Respondents No.l to 5 herein have pleaded that they have purchased the property from the father of the appellants herein during his life time by a registered sale deed'and they are in possession of the suit land on the basis of the reglsteredsale deed which has not been challenged by the appellants. 6. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, learhed 1st Civil Judge Class-II has dismissed the suit on the ground that the property has been sold by father of the appellants to respondents No.l to 5 herein, and the same has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Findings ofthe Courts below are based on i^>'^te"^:;{i;ii;.?^'S;^^;"-^.^^^; Soma ""'aocumentary & oral evidenceadduced on behalf of the parties and respondents No.l to 5 herein are in possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale deed executed by the owner of the property during his life time. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law for decision of this appeal. 7. Consequently, the appeal is Ijable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, in limine. No orderas to costs. r-—— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge i ^-