^7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.387 of 2006 APPELLANT/: (DefendantNo.1) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff) 1, 2; Smt. Prabha Sharma, w/o Vinod Sharma, aged about 45 years, r/o Brahaman Para Rajnandgaon Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon ^G-) .' 1 '.';/-. •'•.l.-.;'::.;l~'. Versys Basant Kumar S/o Late Gopal Prasad aged about 68 years ,r/o Parmalkasa Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State pf M.P, (Now C.G.) Through the Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No.2) {SeGondappeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Prbcedure, •1908} Present: Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr, Raghavendra Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.H.C. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.1 . Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2. . ; i Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (1-9-2010) • 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 ofthe C.P.G,, the appellant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 10-3- 2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No.2-A/2004 affirming the judgment & decree dated 12-1-2004 passed by the 2nd CiviUudge Class-11, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit Np.36- A/2002, whereby learned Civil Judge CIass-11 has decreed the suit for declaration and possession. 2. As per pleadings and documentsof the parties, total 2 acres of land bearingKhasraNo. 195/1 was sold by respondent No.1 to the appellant which was un-irrigated land, but at the time of takingpossession the appellant has erroneously taken possession of 0.75 acre ofjrrigated land and when the mistake was detected, agreement Ex.P-1 was executed between both theparties, however, even after execution of agreement, the appellant has not vacated the land measuring 0.75 acre. Suit was filed and the same decreed. Judgment & decreeof the trial Gourt was challenged in appeal befpre the lower appellate Court and by affirming' ' ^ Soma the judgment& decree of the trial Court, the lower appellate Court has disfflissed the appeal by the judgmenf & decree impugned. 3. 1 have heard learned counselforthe parties and perused thejudgment &, decree and records of both the Courts below. 4.Mr.PramodKumarVerma,|earnedSeniorAdvocateappearingonbehalf of the appellant, submits that in the present second appeal the only substantial question of law would be fhat whether respondent No.1 is entitled for possession of Khasra No.195/7 which the appellarit hgs not purchased. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.C. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.1, opposes the appeal; 6. Judgment & decree, evidence and pleadings of the parties reveal that KhasraNo. 195/1 total area 2 acres i.e. 0.25 acre + 1.00acre +0.75 acre was sold by resporident No.1 to the appellant vide sale deed dated 28- 12-93 and the land was yn-jrrigated. However, as per the agreement Ex.P-1 and revenue record, at the time of taking possession, the appellant has taken possessjon Qf 1.25 acres of land as per the sale deed, but has erroneously taken pQssession of 0.75 acres of land which was irrigated instead of un-imgated land and when the mistake was detected, the agreement was executed. After sale of land, it appears that map & revenue record have beeh corrected and the alleged suit property i.e. 0.75 acre ofland 1s shown as Khasra No.195/7whjch is part of Khasra No. 195/1 . Evidence led by both the parties supports the aforesaid facts. 7. In these circumstances, 1 do not find any substantial question of law for the decision of this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed atthe admjssion stage itself. Noorderas to costs. 8. However, it is made clear that the appeliant is entitled for possession of 0.75acre of landwhich he has purchased by sate deed from respondent -No.1. .• :,1 .'••/' . .. lli ' ! . • '—-—i ''•;••'-\!. :-•-', Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge