HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RBSPQNDENTS S.A. No.373/2009 Rameshwar, aged 40 years, son of Shri Dasru, caste Dhakar, resident of village Toyar, tehsU Jagdalpur, district Bastar (PlcdntiffAppeUant). VERSUS (1). (2) Smt Dhasimati, aged 33 years, wtfe of Shri Raauram, caste Dhakar, resident ofvUlage Dubey Ahiar, tahsil Jagdalpur, district Bastar (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough fhe Distdct Collector, distdct Bastar, office at Jagdalpiir (C.G.). (Defendants/Respondents}. SBCOND APPBAL UNDBR 8BCTION 100 OF THB CODB OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908. (SB :Hon*ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:. Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 26/8/2009) 1. Heard. 2. This is a second appeal under Section 100 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (ia short the code) agaiast fhe judgment aad decree dated 23/7/2009 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur m civU Appeal No. 68-A/09 affinning the judgment aad decrce of dismissal of suit dated 31/1/08 passed by Vth CivU Judge, Class-2, Jagdalpur m civU suit No. 1 l-A/06. 3, Learaed counsel for fhe appellaat argued fhat present appeUaat/plamtiff has filed a suit for declaration aiid possession of fh.e property iaherited by Dasra aiid after deafh of deceased ^Dasni aiid his wife Laxmibai on fhe ground ofwiU executed ia his favour by deceased Laxinibai aad fhat he is adopted son of Dasru ..^P5^:^:,^. -1^1- ^^-as$s ^ Y" aad Laxniibai. He has succeeded fhe property by non testamentary aad testamentaiy succession left by deceased Dasru agaiast tiie daughter of his fafher's broflier Raiau namely Snit. Dhaamati present respondent No, 1 who has also pleaded in her written statenient fhat she is adopting daughter of deceased Dasru aad Laxmibai but todal Court has dismissed fhe suit on the ground fhat bofh fhe party has not proved fhe adoption aiid wiU same has been afBnned by fhe First Appellate Court by judgment aad decree impugned, Learaed counsel for the appeUant further argued fhat ia case both the party failed to estabUsh flie iaterest over fhe properly on the basis of adoption or testamentaiy succession then the suit ought to have been decreed by fhe Coiirts below on the ground of succession as son ofbrother ofthe deceased Dasru aad daughter of brother of Dasru along wifh other brofher of fhe father of fhe appeUaat naoiely Chaitu aiid Laikhan but court has uot passed fhe decree ia aforesaid temis aad fhereby coiximitted aa iUegatity. Judginent impugned aad decree of bofh the courts below perused. It reveals ftiat plaintiff/appellaat has not clauned any relief on fhe ground of succession as a brofher's sou of fhe property left by Dasru aad his wtfe Laxinibai court below has rightly dismissed fhe civil suit aad have not graated aay relief because same was not claimed but such ground aad clami is stiU available to fhe plamtiff he niay tf so advise file civil suit or clami of partition agaiast ofher heirs of the Dasru on fhe basis of succession, I do not fiiid aay substantial question of law for '^ IWfPMUUIL decision ofthis appeal. Consequentiy, fhis second appeal is liable to be disndssed aad it is hereby dismissed. 6. I,A. No. 1 is also dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge