APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) HXGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.407 of 2009 Puniya Bai, wife of Fagu, aged 61 years, Satnami by Caste, R/o Village Ameri Akbari, Police Station and Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Versus 1. Jageshar, son of Budhu, aged 65 years. 2. Ramkhilawan, son of Jageshar, aged 45 years. 3. Rampiyare, son of Jageshar, aged 40 years. 4. Kalyan Das, son of Jageshar, aged 35 years. 5. Sukbai, wife of Rampiyare, aged 35 years. (All respondents No.l to 5 are R/o village Ameri Akbari Police Station and Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). {Second appeal underSection 100 ofthe Code ofdvil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. J.S. Baraik, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL 3UDGMENT (25-9-2009) i. This secpnd appeal under Section 100 ofthe C.P.C. is directed against the judgment & decree dated 3-9-2009 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.l-A/2009 affirming the judgment& decree of dismissal of the suit for declaration & partition of immovable property, dated 9-2-2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Bilha in CivilSuit No.70-A/2008. '~^. s'e'<<ea'l*!sw'''s'»!SS»^^ & ^ •nqpng paseaoep Aq ysi Ayadojd 94}. J9AO is9ja)ui Aue jo^ p3|}i)ua iou SEM sqs 'paujeujun SBM pue jouiiu •SBM 4UB||8ddE aqi 'eLU!HEq}iB''og61. -leaA aqi ui p9ip }ue||9dde eqi p jsqie^ -puej6 pue ^Q\. jeeA aq^ ui peip }ue||adde sq} p jaqiej •aio}sno qons ou SGM 8j9L|} ^eqi pspB9|d A||BoypadssBM )! pue g 0} I.'ON s}uapuodsoj Aq peiuep sj )uE||3dde 94} ^o LUIBIO 'jeyie^-puejB JSLI '§ jsqie^ JSLI Aq tj3| Ayadojd aqi Ln sjeqs JQJ pai^iuo si }uB||edde a^ 'ojopjSL)} 'B^ifjeqQ se MB|-u!-j8L|ie^ siq p ssnoy aqi ui Buipisaj si nBej pue n6ej pueqsny j3i4 qtjM Buo|e jaqie^ jeq ^o ssnoq aq} ui 6uip!S3j si iue||addeaqi •(s)jaqtojq jeq L|IIM 6uo|e ejeqs |enb949B [[IM ja}L|6nep 3^} 'eqipeqQ SB Me]-u!-j9L]}e^ siq .(o ssnoq aq} ui episej 0} pasn MB|-U]-UOS aqt pue uosjsd e q^iM paujeai si jefqSnep e i\ 'Luoisno Jisqi 0} Buipjoooe pue tUB]]9dde eq) p LUiep syi 01 6uipjooov '9S61. sjo^eq psip jeqiueqsig jsiitojq jsqtoue siq pue }ue||adde sq} jo js^ej 'nLipng Aq yai A}jodojd 8L|t yodn p9)e}nLUSEM |.'ON tuepuods9j p aiueN 'nqpng p3iu!i ejii sq} 6uunp paip ')UE|[sdde 9L|i p JQLjte^ 'jeqseqsig '§ jeqLueqsig 'A]9LUBU nqpng paseaoepjo suos OMI 'nijpng peseeoep ^o suos eqip auo 'JeqseLisig peseeoap ^o j3tL|Bnep A|UO 341 si }ue|]adde aqi •e(ndsip ui Aysdojd ei)} ^o jeuMO SBM '[.'ON luapuodsej ;o jeqiei '(peseaoap eouis) nqpng •^ 0} Z-ON s}uspuodsaj ^o ujsnoo '§ |,'ON luapuodsej J.o je}q6nep s.jeqiojq si tue||addeaL|t'snpu!|-| eje g 0} [,-ON siuspuodsej '§iuB[|edde aqi'saiijed sqt p s6u!pee|d SL|) jad se \GU^ aje |B9dde siq^ o} esu 6UIM6 s)oe.( ^eug •fr •pnoo |BU} 94} p sajoap •? tu3Lu6pnf eq) p Adoo 94} OS|B se pguBndLui eajoep '§iuaai6pnf SL)) pesnjed 'g'ON tuepuodssj/sieig eq} jo^ jeAMei lauEj peujeai '§}ue||adde eqi JQJ lesunoo psujesi pjeeLf 8Aeq | •£ •nqpng peseaoap Aq ye| A}jedojd sq) uodn tue]|adde 9L|) p uoissaoons p }q6u sqi psjapisuoo (ou sAeq M0]eq spnoo SL|) qioq ieq} punojB eq} uo p96ue||eqo eje peuBndLUi eejoop '§ }uaLu6pnp •z t '^; I '*e 1 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has proved the custom of Gharjiha and the appellant is entitled for equal share along with respondent No.1. 6. Judgment & decree impugned and copyofjudgment & decree ofthe trial Court reveal that father of the appellant died during the life time of his father Budhu and Budhu also died before 1956, at that time, the appellant was minor & unmarried. After the death of father of the appellant, interest of father of the appellant devolved upon the living coparceners i.e. other brothers of the father of the appellant & grand- fatherofthe appellant, therefore, no right to succession was available to the appellant on the death of her father in accordance with Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellant has not proved any such custom relating to Gharjiha, even otherwise, the appellant was unmarried at the time of death of her father & grand-father. Nobody has pleaded & proved that at the timeof birth of the appellant, parents of the appellant had decided that they will marry her daughter with a person who will live in their house as Gharjiha. This is a complete case offuture contingency and the ground was even not available to the appellant when the succession opened. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled for any interest over the property left by her grand-father. Both the Courts below after apRreciating the evidence and legal prepositions have dismissed the suit & appeal. 1 do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned or any substantial question of law involved for the just decision of the case. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge