<^- .,^s&-"" «•^ INTHE fflGH COUBT OFJCmCATNRE AT BILASFURfC.GO SECOND APPEAL N0.^? OF 2006 ~ APPELLANT DEFANDENT RESPONDENTS ^/Smt.DhhudhsiWifeofShriRamU Uraon, D/o Late Shri Soma, aged about 27 years,Resident of Village Civildag, TahsilSamri,DistrictSurguja(C.G.) VERSUS 1. , PhausiWifeofSUriBhifhalD/o Late Shri Phagua, aged about 50 year, Resident of Village Civildag, TahsU Samri,District Surguja (C.G.) > State of Chhattisgarh, Throuth : The Collector, Surguja Ambikapin- (C.G.) MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTIONlOO OF TFIE CODE QF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 --': / XI-HC-22 3^"i<l.<.l|i1'i<, 8-rflu'IS, fs|dltilj<. &11^1 ^TlCh , „....5. G. r. X .9. 3. f0_{' *<IN^I shttl* •-•"•"•-•••••••••••y^q'200 Rl'b4"""""""" sii^T^r f^Nisn^T shilitiH^cr sn^r^iTWHfer qillF'l'sfl-f 1|t|<-]Tfftecit<Rl'hll< ^Slf^TTSn^T 30.08^006 Shri Akhil Amawal, Adv< G.P. Gupta, Counsel for fhc atk Aisumcnts on adinissioili Order dictated as foUow^: xahe appears on bchalf of Shri ipellant. heard. ORAL t>RDBR 30.0ns •200S This is thc defendantls Second Appeal filed undcr Section 100 of thc Code of Ciwil PToccdure. This appcal arises out of iudgmcnt and d<fccrec dated 13.02.2006 passed bv fhe Thhd Additional Disi ict Judge (FTC), Ambikapur, District - Sareuja (C.G.) in Cijril Appcal No.l-A/2005 arismg out of tudgment and decree d4ted 21.11.2003 passed ia Civil Suit N0.34-A/2000 by thc Fir^t AdditiMial Civfl Judge, Class- I, Ambikpur, DistAt - Sarguj^ (C.G.). Thc olaintifi", respondeitt No.l herein, filed a siut for declaration of titfc aad alsol the plaiat The plaint allesatit] the setf acquired pToperty of ] for pcmianent mnmction in relation to fhe sidt lands deslcribed in Schcdule -A & B of >ns are that the stdt lands wcrc late Fagua Uraon, who died 8 vcars prior to the date of infetitution of thc suit. He was succecded by his wife naine|ty Pagni, fhc origmal plEuntiff No.l aad Phausi, dauehter, o)Hginal plEuntiff No.2. It is also ptealcd in the plaiat that F^igua Uraon was h^ing a soi ^ff ''.<x XI-HC-22 •sn^rw (?:ira 3'n^r sbHlcti^[!?tT 1 ; :j t.'- 3^'3(TqT?PT, S^tePTg, [sldiy^ 3il^i Macb f ^...5>A.T.t<9..^.<3i KIK^I shKtch ••-••••••••'^•y--'ifgq- 200 (cl'ti.A vears ago. Soma was haviaa at llie aee of 7 yeara and his ^rofe^r WRTF ff fei^ <<^%R ^Sff^ITSn^T namelv Soma, who died in thfc lifetune ofhis fether about 28 bne son iiaaaclv Sube, who died wife aaindy Sita teft tt»house of Soma and she re-married ^ith one Gutri (®.Meena aad was .Iiving wifh him.. It is speci wedlock of Qutri (8i Meena appcUant hercia, took place. bv thc fllaiatiff fhat name of att relatcd wifh fhe fejiulv of pteaded that out of fhe Sita, birih ofdefendant No.l, It was veiy spccificalhr pteadcd fhe father ofdefiaidaat No.l is Gutn ®.Mecna and ia this xnlaiiner, dcfendant No. l fa not at Pagua. The plamtiff No. 1 dted during the peadency of i3ae si(it aiid her name was detetcd. In this maiiacr. the olafntifiF No prgyed fot the abcwe reliefin 1 The dcfeadaat, appeqaat faereia, fited her written steteinent dcaymg ttie coatejntjons of fhe plaintiff. It was pleaded by hcr that she wa^ flie daughter boca out of the wedtock of Soma and Stta antt she WE having mterest in the suit piopertfes. The learaed trial Court fi-anaed varuus issues ia this case and ttereafter, decreed mi'uaction was also pasaed a^ Against fhe afoiesmd i1 12, the respondent No.l herem, [he suit fhe suit of thc plaintifF holding fhat she is the owiier of fhe ^uit propertics. Along wifh the aforesaid declaratton, a decre^ for possessfon aad permaaent favoiirofttie plaiatiff. iidgment and decree passed by tfae trial Coiu-t. the defeaddnt fited an apncal before the Lower AppeUate Courfc The L|cwer AppcUate Courtcon^@CTt, ^- XI-HC-22 an^rcKi ^•risKa.n^T OTWH^cT 3^s(prRpT, (!iTfl<^|e, Rftiuy< STTc^q^S' IITqwgilTR; """""""""""/" CT^ 200 Rre% sn^T^aT^cirf^cT 3 +wFd41-< MWriTfffe^ <R|«K ^;3l1^IT3TI^T the finding regarding patenii^r of fhe defendant and it also held that ftie defendant was |iot a dai^hter bom out of thc wedtock of Soma aad Site. However, it parUv modified fhc decrec aad siantcd only thc IreUef of declaration of titte and also that the mutatun inadel in the name of defendant was iBegal and void atoag wifli ti]ie cost of the suit aad appeai The decree grauted for posses|sK>n was set aside by the Lower AppcBate Court vide para 31 |ofthc judpnent that there wcrc no pteadiags tegardina disp^ssession ete, neitfaer the suit was valued for posscssion aot- any Court Fees on the reBefof possessfon was afBxed ai^d tfae issues regarding fhe posscssioa vidc issue No.4 ii^as a redunxlaat fasuc and flus issue was neither required toj this issue was required fori be firamed nor any dccfeion on want of pleadmgs and other formalities. Lcamed counsel for 1|he appeBant areues that the findiae. in relation to pater4itv of the appeBaat is not in accoidancc wifh law. He sutitoaits fhat tfae trial Cozut as well as fhe Fiist AppcUate Court ^rred in laro in hoMing that the a-DpcUant was not the dauaht^r of Soina. I have hcaid leamed cotiasd for fhe appellant at lcngfh and have also eone throiuth 1 bekw. Both fhe Courts after fhe records of the two Courts discussiiu; fhe ewdence ted by fhe parties have recorded a fi^idiag fbat in fact, fhe defendant was not the daughter bora c|ut of fhc wedtoek_^S^ng agd- ^ ^ '4^<K XI-HC-22 5S? 'yWM^, ^•rflu'16, Ri'IIU^ 3T(^?T^ach . —.....4'A.'.2^3.°!./o-^ lllNcllshKlcb •••••••••••••••••••Y ^pj- 200 (^•b^ w^rw R-fi+sn^r stiiitiflf^a' ai*f ^ -^f^ 3n^rs?<nwEif?cr lt- Sita and was hayiae no righjt Pagua Uraon. Thcre appeaijs aforesaid findmg offact Siacc fhis findinif of the two Courts below and fhe sanic. I aia of thc involvc anv substantial Sectfon 100 ofthe Gtodc Thc appeal has no fhe motion stage iteelf. reconled &ct thetc oomiion ^irafepft^ iiroff fffec^ rfSrezre ^aif^irsn^r or intcrest iu fhc pioperty of to be no pcrversity in fhe bv the two Courts befcw. is coiicurrentiy recorded by appcars to be 110 perveisity m that this appeal docs not oftem for interference imder questjon of Cptfl. Procedure. mfirit aad the sauK is disinissed at Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge ••f •• r— Cft^y^) ^ ',<x