.^.'^,^ •%»^j^ ^'^!//A. "^s^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI APPBLLANT PLAINTIFF VSRSUS 1. 2. Janak Ram S/o Nandlal, aged about 28 years, R/o SiwaEiikhurd, Patwari Halka No. 8, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtan (C.G.). Sukhlal S/o Duwaru Ram Sahu aged about 60 . years, R/o Vfllage Siwanikhurd, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.). State of Chliatdsgarh Through District CoUector, Dhaintari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. 4. MEMORANDUM OF SECOND API%AL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 not noticed. ORAL- JUDGBMENT (Passed ®a05/08/2011) By fhis second appeal uuder Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appeUant has chaUenged the legaUty aad propriety of the judgment dated 27/10/09 passed by Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) Dhamtari Distnct Dharatari, C.G. ia civil appeal No. 6A/2009 afBrmiag the judgment aad decree of disniissal of suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and penaanent injunctioa Passed by First Civil Judge Class-2, DIiamtari in civil siiitNo. 206A/06 videjudgmentdated 8/5/08. Shri Awadh Tripaftii, Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the appeUant and • Sbri Sanjeev Kuiaar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respoadent No. 2. are lieard. Judgment aad decree impugned aad record of bofh the Courts below perused. As per plaint aUegation inade by present appeUant/plauitiff land ia dispute was his ancestral property recorded in fhe narne of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has refused to give share to the present appellant/plaintiff fsiKs S / and aforesaid ground suit for declara.tion of title, partition, possession aad pentiauent iujuaction was filed. Respondent No. 1 has denied the adverse ailegation and specificaUy pleaded respondent No. 1 has recorded owner of the property and aforesaid property is his setf acquired property. After providing an opportunity of hearing, both the Courts below have disnussed the suit and appeal on the ground that present appeUant has failed to proofthe property is aiicestral property or joiat Hiadu famfly property. VirtuaUy appeUant has not adduced any evidence to proof or discharge his burden. In absence of any evidence bofh ftie Courts below hav.e rightly disiaissed fhe suit and appeal filed on behalf of ftie appeUaat, I do not find any substantial question of law for decision of this second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be disraissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. T.P. Sharma Judge u?tis.it,3'".——-fc-,.