INTHE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECONDAPPEAL N0. 72004 II I'!' APPELLANTS / 1. 2. -^s' <^ 's^'.^' ^/ ^y ^y^w / Dhaneshwar Son of Shri Chenga, caste - Nagwansi, aged about 46 years, Khora, son.of late Dhansai, caste - Nagwanshi, aged about 23 years, Both are resident of village Kharadorna, P.S. Sitapur, Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) 'RESPONDENTS VERSUS ^' Karu, son of Shri Bila, aged about 79 years, residenf of village Kradorna.; ;P;S. and.Tah. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja(CG) ChhattisgarK State, Through : 'The, ; ColIectoE, Distt. Surgi;ya(CG)1 SE©OND^ APPEAL ?aHtMai» SECTION lOiO OF CIVIL IKROCEDUREiGODE, 1908 s^ HIGH COURTOT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU'R Sinate Beneh: Hon'bleShri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANTS SESPONDENTS Versys Kam aod another. Shri Sushil Dubey, coun^l for the appellant. Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the respondent. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTtON 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORALORDER (12.03.2810) .^•^ The suit preferred by the respondenVplaintiff tor declaration title and possession has been decreed by the two Courts below. The father of the plaintiff and mother of the defendants were brother and the name of the sister. The suit land was acquired and recordKl ptaintiffe father Pila. On beii^ dispossessed ttie suit for decteration andpossession. .(2) The defendants case in the trial Court was that his father Gharjamai and vras setttedon the land and as such being Gharjamai he is entitted to property aml his name was duly mutated and recorded in the revenue record by Ex.D/1 and D/2, the orders passed by the Tahsildar an^S.D.O. respectively. (3) Thetnal.Courtaswellasthefirstappellate Court hasfoundthat the suit land was self acquired property of Pila and that the defendant not enjoy the status of 'Gharjamai'. The possession of the appellant has been found to be ittegal and recording of the name of the jappellants on the su'rt property has also been found to be iitegal. The ^^M&^UM ISa; ;;;":: ^:..:::.';^ -•2- effort of the defendant to set up a title on the strength of will execute( by Kariyo on 01-09-1996 Ex. D/3 has ateo found to be not satisfyjns the lega) »;rutinyfor conferral of t'rtte on the appellant because the testator namely Kariyo had no title in herself. (.4) On |»rusai of the evklence available on record and the impugned judgments this Court is satisfied that there Is no the findir^s recorded by the Courts below. No substantial (aw arises for determination in this appeal. The second ss perversity in 1 question of Sd/- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge ' ^r 'c^ llMifi"gt