c tignct IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.^1! ^)F 2004 APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS 1. • / , ,,. is.iS^f jy^/ Si^ ^w /' ^ 4 ^~ 6.. 7. z / /' A. Budhyaro, widow of Late Kuba, aged 65 years B. Surit S/o Late Kuba, aged 45 years. Vasudev S/o Late Kuba, Aged 30 years. D. Tharri S/o Late Kuba, And Wife Bigan aged about 33 years. Patha, S/o Khuru, aged about 45 years, caste Korwa. Sukhani, Widow of Kunwar, aged about 35 years, caste Uranw, Occupation agriculture, R/o - Village Belkota, Tah. Sitapur, Disstt. Surguja (C.G.) Budhram S/o Khuru, aged about 35 years, caste Korva, Ramnath S/o Khuru , aged about 30 years, caste Korva Bagarsay S/o Kundan, aged about 8 years minor. Sagarsay S/o Kundan, aged about 6 yearsminor Appellant no. 1,2&5 are R/o Village Belkota, Tah. Sitapur Distt. Surguja, C.G. Appellant no. 4's R/o Village Silsila, Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. VsSS'SSX!. Appellant no. 6 & 7 are ininors through their guardian namely Bali Wakudev R/o Village Belkota, Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. V ERS U S RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 2 /' 3/"' Josfina D/o Kurthi aged 50 years, Caste Uranv. Agastin D/o.Sukhna, aged about 45 years caste Uranv. Kumbhkaran S/o Kurthi, aged about 35 years caste Uranv. All R/o Village Belkota, Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. C.G. Government, Through Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) ' ^^ MEMO^^F SEC^OND APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRQCEDURE, 1908. .?<, VALUATION OF APPEAL - Rs. 820/- . (As valued in courts below) COURT FEE AFFIXED - Rs. •Q2/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 542 OF 2004 ^ fe.,,:i,;%.liig»*»s APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS Budhyaro and others. Versus Josfina and others. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for appellants. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5 day of January, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. The Fifth Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) Ambikapur vide its judgment and decree dated 06-09-2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2004 dismissed the appellants'/plaintiffs appeal (hereinafter referred toas the 'plaintiffs') affirming the judgment and decree passed by First Civil Judge, Class-11, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2000 videjudgment and decree dated 20-11- 2001, henci this second appeal. 3. The facts in brief are as under: Asuit claiming relief of declaration oftitle, possession and permanent injunction over the suit property was instituted by the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants have dispossessed them in the year 1996 ahd the revenue authorities have unauthorisedly entered the respondents' name over the suit ra.^ |8». %] J'/ ^^^^•^ -!;,S;:"?SS property. The respondents in their written statement have denied the above allegations and have pleaded that their predecessors have purchased the suit land vide registered sale- deed dated 01-04-1969 and 03-06-1986 and obtained its possession and since then they are in peaceful cultivating possession and also have constructed the house thereupon. 4. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence led, material placed on record and submissions made by both the parties, recorded a finding that the respondents are owners and in possession over the suit property in pursuance of its purchase vide impugned sale-deeds and are in its peaceful cultivating possession, and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence and material on record affirmed the above finding and dismissed the first appeal. 5. I have gone through the pleadings, documents and evidence recorded in the suit and 1 do not find any perversity, illegality or absurdity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise in the instant appeal. 6. It is trite law that existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 100 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908. T L;;^-"^^?1 Q^ f, '(i."<":''^ 6^ 7. Therefore, 1 do not find any substance in the instant appeal. The fails and is hereby dismissed on admission stage. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge ^'r ^!!. :)i