"1\N ^ f" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Defendants) Second Appeal No.228 of 2007 1. Bhagwani, aged about 60 years, S/o Khemhai, 2. Bhagwat, aged about 58 years, S/o Khemhai, Both R/o Village Rahangi, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilapsur (C.G.) Versus 1. Ramadhin, aged about 50 years, S/o Sonsai, 2. Mahetru, aged about 60 years, S/o Sonsai, 3. Ramadhar, aged about 35 years, S/o Sonsai, (All R/o Village Rahangi, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bitaspur (C.G.)) {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiffs) Present: Mr, H.V. Sharma, counsel for the appsllants. 1111. •^ Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, 3 ORALJUDGMENT (29-7-2009) 1. This second appeal under Sertion 100 of the C.P.C. is directed ^''. • • .' • • • . • •..'. against the judgment & decree dated 28-4-2007 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur in Civil Appeal N0.41A/2005, whereby learned Additional District Judge has reversed the judgment of dismissal of the suit and decreed the suit for declaration &possession. 2. Judgment & decree are chaiienged on the ground that the present appellants are the persons who are in possession since.last 25 years and have perfected the title, but the Court below:has wrongly reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment & decree as also the judgment & decree of the trial Court and record ofthe Courts below. \ ,.rt;A. '""^!'. £A S ^MSg^ \5» ei':¥33S' 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that on the basis of agreement to sale the present respondents came into possession of the suit land and sale deed Ex.D-6 was executed by father of the plaintiffs/respondents, but wrongly Khasra humber was mentioned as 1078/2 instead of 1063/2. The present respondents are not having any land in thesaid Village Rahangi bearing Khasra No. 1063/2. The present appellants have proved the factum of possession by adducing evidence, especially the evidence of Dhajaram whose land is situated besides the disputed land. 5. Leamed counsel for the appellantssubmits that following substantial questions of law would be necessary for disposal of this appeal: - "l.Whether the suit filed by the respondents herein for possession was maintainable? 2. Whether the present appellants have perfected theirtitle overthe land?" 6. It is ample clear on the basis of Ex.D-6 sale deed that Khasra No.1078/2 is mentioned instead of Khasra No.1063/2. Ex.D-6 sale deed is a concluded contract, even not based on any prior agreement. In case of any mistake in the sale deedthe appellants were required to take appropriate steps for correction or to file appropriate suit for declaration, but the appellants have not filed any suit or have not got the alleged mistake corrected or have not ratified the alleged mistakeoccurred in the sale deed. Even after filing of civil suit the appellants have not filed any counter claim. On the basis of documents and entitlements, the lower appellate Court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. In absence of any contract or concluded contract there was no need for claiming any relief by the respondents. The present appellants have not claimed any title on the basis of adverse possession. 7. Therefore, I do not find any substantial question of law for decision ofthis appeal. The appeal is wifhout any substance, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge s Soma