‘ Jk‘M / G) of“ W @gm § IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) 1 Seco'nd Appeal No.__ Ql ’ of 200;]. APPELLANTS LAINTIFFS t 1. Smt. Janaki Bai w/o Kapil Ram aged 50 years,'resident o£ village Parasahi, Post - Morra, Tahsil Gunderdéhi, Distt. Durg (C‘.G.)_ / Smt.' Mankunwar Bai w/o shankarlal Sahu, aged 45 years,. resident o village Kanakot. Tahsil Patan, Di‘st£. Durg (C-G. ) . Versus RESPONDENTS ‘ 1.. /DEFENDANTS ’ K9 / Smt. Sona Bai widow of Thakur Ram sahu, aged SO years; Nirang Singh s/o Thakur Ram Sahu‘, aged, 21 years . Himanchal S/o Thakur Ram Sahu 1'7 Yrs. ; Manesh 5/0 Thaku;*Rarn" Séhu, 5 years ' Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Minor through v ; V ‘ ’ Guardian mother Smt. Sona Bai (ReSpondent No.1). All residents of village Gu’dhyari, Post - Kanakot, Tahsil Patan; Distt. Durg (C.G-). Shashank Chandrakar s/o Ramdayal Chandrakar, aged 18 years, resident of village Jamgaon(R), Tah‘ Patan, § Distt. Durg (C.G.), Present Address House No. 160 Narayan Nivas,Motipar‘a, Durg (C.G. ) . State of Chhattisgarh Through z Collector, Durgl @ é W f 3 , c HIGH COURT OF CHHATI’ISGARH AT BILASPuR Smqle Bench' Hon'hle Sim Justice Prashant Kumar Mishr Second Apwal No.51 I 2W4 APPELLANTS Smt. Janaki Bai and anather..«m PLAINTIFFS v; ‘ ‘zf’i‘z Versus RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS smt. Sena Bai-andulhecs: ., W ShnNS DhutandharmrselfutheappellaMs ShnAKPtasad oounseiformspondenhsNo 1to4 } Shn Sourabh Shanna ooumel for lespondent No 5 Shn Sanjeev Agrawal P L for the Statefraspondent No 6 SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL ‘ PROCEDURE ' ‘ , 0 Rk L 0 R D E R (16.03.2010) The present second appea! has been preferred by thepigmtlffs whose suit for a declalation and partition has been dismiss two Courts betow. (2) The ptaimirts squght a decnaration that salikram 31o Gangsn be declared to have met civil death and that the sae-deed-wdatedam‘ 04-07-1994 ailegedly executed by the Salikram in favogr ofédefenda No.5 be declared illegel and for partition and allotment of hal! share m W; the plaint Schedule A property. According to the plaintiffs :Salikra was the son of Ganeshram. Plaintiffs andadefendantsNo. Mo mare legal representatives of Thakur Ram slo Ganeshram andrsadhura, Slo Ganeehram The tourth son Mohan died rssueless (3) lt was the case of the plaintiffs that Salikrarn has not been seen ~ it? l \ death and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in 'thersuit n property and that Salikr‘arn, having already meteivil deathuthqeksale- .... \x for last 35 years, therefore there rs'presumptron that he has metacrvrl a ed mh f n mw W l l l \ ‘ deedpurponed to navebeen executed by the satinam on 0407:1994 a in raviour or derendant No.5 is a nauduiem transaction vandrmat soméone has impetsonated Samaam at the time of execution registered saledeed. (4) {The Courts beiow have concurrentty found that onh‘the ‘basisezof evidence on record presumption regarding civitdeath of~Satilrram gal» ; t é property vatued the suit and has not paid proper Court fees (5) The first appeliate Court has oonttrmed the findings recorded :b “3%” the trial Court on all material issues and has dismissedthestirst app ‘ preferred by the appellants. {6) .On perusal of record it appears thatsthedefendant ~No;5*has examined Gayaram Vemga as gDW—l) and Ramsewak as.(Dw.2)=o his behalf. These two persons are the attesting witness‘olwthelsl deed dated 04074994 (Ex. on). (7) The findings regarded by the trial Court and continnedby theftt appellate Courlare pure findings of fact. The said tindingsthaves en: arrived at alter appreciation of evidence and, the tindings aregnotu, perverse. No substantial question ottaw arises fordeterminatio appeal. The second appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed canndt be dvawn and that the sale-deed dated 04-07-1994 is not ille or fraudgtent. White answering issue No.5 the ttial Courtafoundfthat Salikram is alive. The trial Court also found that the-.ptaintiffhas‘no V ‘ Sd/— Prash‘ant Kumar Mishra Judge 9f» w y e e l" n ae s «s_