fi ''T'- <\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8ECOND APPEAL N0. 173 OF 2011 AJPPELLANT PlaiaUff RESPONDENTS Defeadaats VERSUS Mohaolal, S/o Shivdayal Sahu, aged ^I^.^ITt ^C\ Tr-a^-t^ I? //\ ^7<11-->"T^ lff-n11" o.uou.L <^o jrccuo, r\./ u VlAlct^C. iViU.U;C, Tab.sU Kurud, Post Jijaaigaon, District Dhamtari(C.G.). Ahilya Bai, W/o Gautamram Sahu, R/o Tokrq, Post Manikchouri, Tahsil Abhaupur, At Present R/o ViUage MuUe, Post Jijamgaou, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). Kedar, S/o Nathuram Sahu, R/o Oatapar, Post Jijatagaou, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtan (C.G.). State of Chltatdsgarh, Through the Collector, District Dhanitari (C.G.). SBCOND APPBAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THB CODE OP <3VIL PROCEDURE^l908. :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) 3. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate for tne respondent No. l. Shri Sumit Jhanwar, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 3. QRAL- JUDGEMBNT (Passedoa 29/07/2011) By this second appeal uuder Sectiou. 100 of the Code of CivU Procedure, 1908 ( in short 'fhe Code') agaiast ftie judgment dated 25/2/2011 passed by Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari District Dhanitari (C.G.) in Civil AppealNo. 41-A/2010 afErmiag the judgiaent aad decree dated 4/11/ 2008 dismissing fhe civil suit filed on behalf of fhe appeUaat passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Kurud, Distaict Dhamtari (C.G.) ia civil suitNo. 271-A72005. Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for ftie appellant, Sbri Ravi Kujniar Bhagat, Advocate for fhe respondeiitJNo. 1 aad Shri Suiuit Jhanwar, P.L. for tbe State/respondent No. 3 are heard. Judgnient and decree impugned and record of fhe Court below perused. As per pleading of the parties present appeUant/plaiutiff has filed suit .^" , —. agaiast fhe respondents &r declaration of owner sbip and declaratioa that sale deed executed on bebalf of fhe respondent No. 1 is not biadiag ^-^sssSw^uS^S^f^i^-s^^:^.-^''^r'^^^. -.;——s^-^..;:— <^ -2- upon the respondent No. 2, and for possession of suit property and pennaueut uyunction.. Botti the Courts below has dismissed fhe claiin of appeUaut on the ground that property was origmalty purchased by father of Ahilya Bai, Biseram froin his fafher and she was in possession after death of Biseram, respondent No. 1 Ahitya Bai succeeded property as his sole suiviving successor which has sold fhe property to respondent No. 2. Ftaduig of fhe Courts below are based on docuinentary and ocular evidence. Present appeUant has not adduced auy evidence to establish fhe fact fhat he was owner ofthe property or haviag anv interest over fhe property, I do not find any illegaUty iii the judginent impugned requirin^ auy iaterference ia second appeal, Coasequenfly, second appeal is liable to be disuussed and is hereby disinissed. No order as to costs. Judge .i--