^ ^^s^ ^ WSfflm^ ^•;i" .£. ^v HIGH COUirr OF CHHATN80AIOI AT BILASPUR 8BCOND APPBAL N0. 305/2007 APPBLLANT/ PLAINTIPP RB8POIIDBNT8 DE 1IDAIITS VBRSU8 1. 2. Mahaveer Bhosale, son of Lalaji Bhosale, aged about 60 yeara^ rcsideat of vfflage Bilba, Tah. Bilfaa, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). P&chkaud Pmsad Sharma S/o Motflal Shanxia, agpd about 60 yeara, residteot ofViUage Dhamaxii, Tahsil Bilha, Distt Bflaspiir (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, tiuougfa fhe CoBector, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). SBCOND APPBAL imDBR SBCyTION 100 OF THB CODB OP CIVIL PROCEIDURB. 1908. (8B sHon'bte Mt. T.P.SlMunna, J.) Present: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/respondent ?fo< 2. None for the respondent No. 1. ORAL. JUDQMBMT (Passedon 13/07/2011) 1, Heard on LA, No< 1 applicatton fbr comloiiatfon (rfddtey iii fifeig the second appeal. Prcsent secoad appeal has been preferrcd after 34 days of its Umitation. On due consideration I,A, No. 1 is aHowed. Delay iii filing fhe second appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Heard on adaaussion. 3. By this second appeal under Section 100 of fhc Cirol Procedure Code, 1908 appenaat has chaUei^ed tiie judgmeat and decree of dismissal of appedl dated 12/1/2007 passed by 9& Additfonal District Judge (F.T.C.) Bilaspur (C.G.) m cjvil appeal No. 53-A/2005 affirmmg the judgoieitt aad decrce, of dismissal of suit dated 28/2/2003 passed by fhe 4th CwilJudge, Class-II, Bflaspur (C.G.) m CivUSuitNo. 155-A/2002. ::.^::^ 4. Leanied coiuisel for Ifae gqppeUaaat Shri Bharat Rajput aad learaed counsel for tfae respondent No, 2/State Shri Viaod KumarTekam are heard, 5, Leanied counsel for fhe appellant vehemenfty argiied tfaat alfhoii^h appellant has not produced aaiy dociiment or witness iii support of his claini ofwfll and sale deed but i^espondent No. 1 has adiaitted fhe execution of wiU acid sale deed same was sujBacfent for drawiag aa iafeieBce fhat appellant has purchased fhe sidt pxoperty from respondent No. 1 but bofh fihe Courts below have dtemiased fhe auit aad finding of Coiut below is peryerse< 6, On fhe other haad, learaed coitasel for fhe State/respoiideait No, 2 opposed fhie second appeal, 7. Judgment of both tfae Courts below penii^d, As per judgixieiit preseat appeUant has filed suit jfor declaxation of owaaerahip, he has tiot jBled aiiy docuixieait aod he ha^ not produced asiy evideaee iii support of aaay transactioii or acquisitfon of tifle iaa Jfavoiff of appellaat, m absence of such evidence bofh the Coiirts below have dismissed fhe suit and appeal on the grouaad fhat appeHaiit bas fafled to dischat^e his burden to prooftiie acqiaisitioa oftitte. BolSt fhe Courts below have rightty dismissed the sutt m absexice of aoy docunientaxy or ocular evidence of acquisidton of title of the appellant. White dismissii^ fhe suit and appeal bofh ihe Courts betow have iaot comamitted aiiy ille^ility, I do not fiixd oxsy ^tibstaatial question of law for decision of second appeai Conseqiierttly, second appeal is Hable to be dismissed aad is hereby dismissed at the ste^e ofmotionitsetf, No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge /-