ffnir ^ s' lb7 ^ IN THE 1-IIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH •grsch SECOND APPEAL N^, OF 2005 APPELLANTS/ PL/»INTIFFS .-• f11 <%4^ ^^/. )<'Y4'y;/.•••' y .•<^;:\/-.y ,.<^\y ./' ^yp ^"'^'' .••"' ^y RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS 1. Sajanand, S/o Milatyram Kashyap, Aged about 31 years. ,2: Satanand, S/o Milatv.cam Kashyap, Aged about 34 years. 3^ Chandrika Prasad, S/o Milae'ram, Aged about 28 years. 4.,/' Mantora, W/o Miloiwram Kurmi, Aged about 60 years, All Cultivator, R/o Village Newasa, Tehsil & District Bilaspur(Ce). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The collector, Bilaspur (Chhatt-isgarh). 2. Fishers Agriculture Develop- ment Tribunal, Bilaspur, Through : The Chief Exeuctive Officer, Fisher Development Tribunbal, Bilaspur (C.6.). 3. Gram Panchayat, Newasa, / Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Newasa, Post Jali, Tahsil <& District Bilaspur (Chhattisgrh). 'y Sukhnandan, S/o Milau/ram, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Newasa, Tehsil & bistrict Bilaspur (CG). ^^:" MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CI\SLPROCEDURE XI-HG-22 TS? ••'•{WM^. saww, Vwwy, IPRff ShtlKtl _^^...-..2^.^.. "^ 2OTS' ani^^r f?:iR73DiW ~^\^ ^l^ an^i TOn^T •Hft^r ?iPif?Nt;i ^ITWf ^ tS<S TfsRSK. ^Tsrtigtf sn^i Shri H.S.Patel, learned couns< Shri J.D.Bajpai, learned G.A. P.L. for the State/resDOndent No. 1 . Heard.on admission. The appellants have preferrejj deciaration and perpetual injunctioi dismissed bythe trial Court and the also been rejected by thelearned lo) judgment and decree. {! for the with Shri lants. Sanjeev Agrawai, learned Learhed counsei for the app| below have dismissed the suit of tt appeilant has failed tp prove his submitted that though the documenl) the revenue authorities shows the ap|| Courts below erroneously arrived t{ have failed to prove ownership of th^ appea! as the suit for with respect to the suit tank was ^ppea! preferred by the appejlanf has fwer appe!late Court by the impugned llants submits that both the Courts |ie appellant on the ground that ths (ownership over the suit tank. !t is of Ex.P/1 Nfetar Patrak prepared by Ipeilants as owner ofthe suit tank, the the coriclusion that the appeilants suit tank. !t is further subiTiitted that during pendency ofthe first appea' the appeliants moved an application er Order 41 Rule 27 read with S4 :ti6n 151 ofthe Code and prayed for adducing additional document and sfaught permission t6 file certified copy of Khasra Panchsala for the year 1} Khaton; for the year 1954-55 to shovl registered in the name of Ayo'dhya. 28-29 (Annexure P/1) and Kistbandi Khasra No. 1423, area 2.20 acres is However, the above appiication has alsp been rejected on the ground .t!-|at the same has beeo filed bslatedly without any due explanation. :^34 <dCTi-<4rairt«,t»-ri'l'M<[d,fini'<iy< S • ^) -35)^ Hi*t<Ai^'n^ ?' 3II$?I<RlR-li<b (iaiiaii^?rrt)*fi<i> \e^~ 3n^?Tq°W('jtlij'sl.d) Thus on the basis 6f th| the appellants submits that th^ appeai is that "whether the.lo') the application for permission Courts below were justified ir^ piaintiffs have failed to prove of name of Miiaouram in the N| i^ afor&saidsubmission, Jearned counsel for substantial question of law involved in this 1/er appellate Court was justified in rejecting Ito file additional document and whether the dismissing the suit on the ground that the rtossession of the forefathers in spite of entn/ IstarPatrak-ofEx.P/1?" J.hg^uit is for the dec| perp9ti3at<mj,iinction against th( tank. ' Fr'offl perusal of the opinion that.both the Courts b|i have failed'to prove his Qwner^hip above finding is based on c<t ,,.. ^-.^.-' ', evidence available on recordl appeliants that the tank in qij' they were aware of this fac1| record the appellant intended] vesting of the tank in the Stats] Thus on the basis of there is no question of law invoived for adjudication of th| to be dismissed and it is dismfesed , <RI<lfCT<(1'l*ll*fnT^"ls'<9 tRflt^K ^iSlf^ISII^T: t laration and titie over the suit tank and for i^ defendants agalrvst int^rference in the suit ^videnceavailable on record, ! am of the jelow have correctiy held that the appeilants ^hip and possession over the suit tank. The rrect appreciation of documentary and orai and it is atso based on admission of the lestion has been vested:with She State and since 2000. Even otherwise the revenue to file relates to the year 1928-29 and the is subsequent to that period iid discussions, 1 am of ths opinion that |nuch less any substantial question of law |s appeal. Accordingly, the appeal desen/es at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Dhu-endra Mishra Judge SP/FS/2005-20^000 ^7 :;'^ v'!^