^^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. /f ^- /2010 APPELLANTS (Defendant No.l & 2) l^ Smt. Bedmati, daughter of Rajbal & wife of Shri Ramvriksh, aged 40 years Rajbal, son of Sahru, aged 68 years. Both by Caste- Chikwa, resident of Village Lawaidih, P.S. Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (CG) Vs RESPONDENTS (Plaintiff) ^ Defendant No.3 Defendant No.4 ..l.Smt. Miayin, daughter of Tumko, wife of Manesar, aged 38 years. ,2.Tumko, son of Sahru, aged 65 years. 3. Kenda Ram, sono f Sahru, aged 60 years. Both by Caste- Chikwa,^^ resident of Village Lawaidih, P.S. Darima, 6 Defendant No. Tehsil Ambikapur, Distrjct Sarguja (CG) < State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Sarguja, Ambikapur (CG) ^v/!r }^^ f^i w>^w V6t^' ^l—s-o-i-t'&FiisL dppridl_<ratu-e^ l^c^ty Q?^<i— rd- at Rs.120/- 81 court fee dmxetl B^rQ^-f- The appeal is within limitation . .^'. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 62. %e'%:^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SJRQJ®Sench: Hon'bte Shri Jystj<»Prashanf Kumar Mishra APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Second Appeal No.117 / 2010 Smt. Bedmati and another Versus Smt. Miayin and others. Shri Sund Tripathi, counsel for the appettants. ShrS Sanjeev Agrawa!, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 4. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CtVIL PROCEDURE ORALORDER (01.07.2010) The two Courts beiow have decreed plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction. (2) The plaintifrs dalm was based on WILL dated 07-06-2002 executed by one Beerbal in her favour on 07-06-2002 vide Ex.P/1. Beerbai died on 21-09-^)03 andafter his death defendant No.1 moved an appiication for recording her name in the revenue records and thereafter plaintjff was dispossessed from the $and giving rise to the present suit. (3) According to the defendant, plaintlff never resided with Beerbal and was residtng wtth her father Tumki and bcrth the defendants are in occupatlon of 1 % part of the property belonging to the Beerbal. (t was ateo stated that Beerbal was iiving with the wife of defCTdant No.2 - Rajbai, on whtch the defendant No.2 shifted to Assam. According to the defendant Beerbaj never executed any WILL in favour of the piaintsff and the WILL is forged. (4) The plaintiff examined (P.W.-2) Shaniram in support of his claim as the said Shaniram has put his signature as attesting witness of the ^^^!.^ %•.. ^^s^^ y '^f^' S%K 63 - 2. WILL. One Shivmangal has also been examined as (P.W.-3). Shani Ram has stated that Beerbal had called him to accompany him to AmbiRapur for execution ofWtLL and thatthough he was not inside the room when the W1LL was prepared by Beerbal yet tt was read over to him betore he put his signature. Shivmangal was a n^ghbour of BeerbaS and has stated that Beerba! was mentally fjt and that Beerbal has informed him that he has executed ctocument in favour of plainttff in AmblRapur. (5) Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence has found that the WtLL executed by Beerbal is free from suspicion and has been proved in accordance with the provisions contained in Sectlon 63 ofthe Sndian Succession Act and Sections 68 & 69 of the Evidence Act. (6) Having heard ieamed counsel for the appeltant, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below whiie hotding that the WILL (Ex.P-1) is proved. The said findir^, based on appreciatlon of evidence, is pure finding of fact which cannot be interfered wtth sn exercise ofjurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. (7) No substantiai question of taw arises for determination in thte appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed at the admlssion stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (<-