^ ^^'^••^•^^^•^•^^\^^^U^\^^-^-ij'^-^^ j'^-vj*^w^'^""^'>-r^''(;r':/'J"^'y? -—i,i.--— IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^0^ SECONDAPPEALNO f^'?af / 2009 ,. , ^^ - Subelal S/o Mayaram Satriami ^ ^V^ Aged about 65 years, R/o Village ^^^^ Khamhariya. Tahsil a^.^'S^^1^0^7" Distt.Raipur-(C.4.) ^^^^•-^^ ^ , • ADpellant Plaintiff Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, r. Raipur-(C.6.) '^:..- Respondents / befendants Versus :1. Raipurheen Wd/o ^ajju Satnami, Aged about 45 years 2. Kamal S/o GajjulSatnami, Aged about 32 years 3. Manager S/o Gajju Satnami, Aged about 30 years 4. Bagal (Minor)S/oGajjuScFt-nami, Aged about 10 years 5. Pachki (Minor) S/o ^ajju Satnami, Agedabout 5years Respondent no.4 <& 5 are minors through their |parents and natura! guardian mother Raipurheen Wd/o Gajju Satnami, All R/o Village Khamhariya, TahsH Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-(C.G.) SECONb APPEAL U/S 100 OF TH6 CIVIL PROCEbURE CObE i:^S!ia kM* -^ € ,-^4 u )' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Beneh: Hon'bie Shri Justiee Prashant Kumar NSishra Second Axspeat No. 304/2009 Appellant Respondent Versus Subelal Raspurheen and others. Shri AniS Singh Rajput, counset for the appettant. Second Appeal under Section 100 ot Civii Procedure Code ORAL ORDER (04.02.2010^ Heard on admisslon. (2) The appellant hereln preferred a sult for declaration of easemertary right and mandatory injunction and for possession. (3) The case of the plalntlff that on the land belonging to hlm, he has constructed a watl; however, on the northern side, the defendant has encroached over some part of the public tendl and obstruoted free flow of water trom hls house to the publte draln. (4) Both the Courts below, on the basis of the reports of the Commlssioner as well as the oral evidence, have concurrently found that the defendant has not encroached over any part of the beionQlng to the plaintlft and that there is no obstructlon on his easementary rlght or free ftow of water from his house to the clraln. It has also been found that from the evidence it has not been proved that the defendant has raised any construction over the iand betonglng to the plaintift. ^ f> (5) In the opinion of thls Court, the fEndlngs recorded by the trial Court whtoh has been conflrmecS by the first appellate Court, are pure findlng of fact which cannot be interfered in this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procecture. The appeai therefore fails and Is hereby dismlssed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v /\" •^ ^.-^.../