HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ElgASPUR Sinqle Bench : Hon’ble Shri Dilig Raosaheb Deshmukh,’ J. - Second Appeal No.42 of 2004 Appellant Defendant J Respondents 1 .A. Legal Heirs of Dgcéased Plaintiff Defendant No.2 Defendant No. 3. 3 Second Angel under Section 100 of the Code ofICivil Procedure Sukhru s/o Tljram, aged about 78 years by caste-Chandra, Rlo Borsi, Tah. Janjglr. Distt. Janjgir-Champa (0.6.) Versus Heera Bai widow of Parasram, aged about 78 years. Rio. Chor Bhattl, Tah. Salcti, Distt. Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) Sardlfa Slo Parasram Chandra, aged about 35 years, Rio. Chor Bhatti, Tah. Sakti, District Janjgir — Champa. Firtin Bai wife of .Jhaduchandra. aged about 42 years, R/o. Jaijaipur, Tah. Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (All of Legal heirs of the deceased Parasram) Son Kunwar widow of Runjhu, aged about 79 years, by Caste-Chandra, R/o Borsi, Tah. Janjgir. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Through Collector, Bilaspur (Now Janigir-Champa) , counsel for the appellant. Present: Shri S.N.Nande Shri Akhil Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for the Statelrespondent No.3. No one appears for other respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10‘“ or April, zoos) Heard on admission. (2) The appellantldefendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree Civil Appeal No.16-N1 997 by the Additional District Judge, Janjgir affirming the judgment and decree dated 17-02- dated 09-1 2-2003 passed in 2 1997 passed in Civil Suit No.8-Al1985 by the Civil Judge Class-l. Janjgir, VVIhereby the suit for possession of Khasra No.766i1 area 0.68 acres situated in Borsi was decreed aainst the appeilantidefendant. ‘ i i (8) Both the Courts below have held that on the death of Baldeo in or about the year 1932, his daughter Karamati had no right to the suit groperty and his brother Runjhu became the owner of the property in question. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Sonkunwar, widow of Runjhu and Shyamkunwar acquired title over the suit property and, therefore, by virtue of sale-deed dated 26-02-1957 executed by them, a valid title was transferred in favour of Parasram (the original plaintiff). A finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that Parasram was in possession of the suit property till 1980 and was unauthorisedly dispossessed only in June, 1982 by the appellant/defendant. lt was further held by both the Courts below that the appellant/defendant has failed to establish adverse possession over the suit property, The fmding that on death of Baldeo somewhere in June, 1932, daughter Karamati had no title to the suit property is impeccable. Thus sons of the appellant/defendant acquired no title over the suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by Karamati on 23-04-62. Other findings mentioned above recorded by both the Courts below are findings of fact. l am of the considered opinion that the judment and decree for possession passed in favour of the plaintiffs is based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary and also the law prevailing prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. .~\ Both the Courts below have rightly held that the original plaintiff Parasram had acquired title over the suit land through registered sale-deed dated 26-02-1957 executed by Shyamkunwar and Sonkunwar and, therefore, was entitled to relief of the possession over the suit land. No substantial ’/ question of law arises for determination of this appeal. ./- ”’ l 1 (4) The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. M‘(C.)P.No.139f2004, an application for stay also stands dismissed. 4a Sd/- Dilip RaoSaheb Deshnnl’ukliw Judge Gnpal