IN THE HH IG CT OUR OF CHHATTISAR GH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 222 [2006 ! ‘ Sing“? 8ench‘ :- (Ghasiram aged about 46 yearS, son of late Shn Balaram Sahu resident of village Bhathallkala Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur [C G ] APPELLANT PLAINTIFF ( VERSUS Ré’éPONDENTs :- 5. EFENDANTS «I Kachara Bai wife of Ramadhar Sahu, aged about 57 years, resident of village; Dundukapa; Tahsil Mungeli District Bilaspur [C.G.]‘. Ram Bai Wife of Kangalu Sahu‘, resident ofl village Patera, Tahsil Lormi District— Bilaspur. fl O / ”X P§9““ ] Kaushilya resudent of Bai Village Wife of Patharra Jalesh Tahsul Sahu Lormi, District Bilaspur fC.G.. ] ,4] State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Bilaspur [C.G.]. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , XI—HC-78 ~¢.. , 5.A, WW,W,W a £2? M WWW mmm wwwm 0§.09.2006 Shri Ravindra Agrawai, Heard on admission. mmffktém $Wm The appellant/plaintiff I” under Section 100 of the Code }udgment and decree dated, Judge, Mungeii, Distt—B‘i'laspur learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.3.2005 passed by the No. 73—A/01 in which the suit of is exclusive owner and posse dismissed. earned counsel for the appellant. WW(W) asxpreferred the instant second appeal of Civil Procedureagainst the impugned 28.2.2006 passed by Additional District in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/O5 whereby the ' Learned counsel for the below have dismissed the claim the Wiil dated 2.7.1980 execute appellant is a suspicious doc arrived at by ignoring the fact registered document though th Civil Judge, Class-l, Mungeii in Civil Suit the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff ssion holder of the suit land, has been t appellant submits that both the Courts of the appellant by recording a finding that d by father of the appellant in favour of the iment. However, this finding has been that the Will in question was in fact a the executor as per provisions < e same was registered after the death of if Section 41 of the Indian Registration Actw XI-HC—78 mm (W) (v,WWW ammm WWW . -Z# WW§WW %aqf%rran%¥T and thus the Courts beiow hav a failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 41 of the ‘ndian Registra be registered even after th circumstances and therefore, th arise for adjudication of this appe al. (1) ‘Whetherthe genui ii: is registered u Registration Act, aft er death of its executor? (2) ‘Whether the learn ‘giving the benefit t declaration of titie, i Wili-deed?. tion Act which provides that the Will can a death of executor under certain 3 following substantial questions of law teness of the ll is effected when Wi nder section 41 of the Indian ed courts below has erred in not tf succession when the suit is for ‘hough the. pleadings are related to l have perused the impugr ed judgment as also the judgment of the trial Court and the material availa )le on record. The learned trial Court while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 has that the property in question is the seif recorded a finding that the fact acquired property of Kaipa has not been proved and similarly that Will in favour of the plaintiff by the deceased Kalpa with respect to the suit land FF HW,W,W mmm 5/4wa22/f 2H 200 XI-HC—78 3EHamRRLE$hW@,%Em¥g Wm . § {.la'. [y.°.‘.é27?/.Qé mm (W) a1 200 WWW vmmntvff&kd’rlf%mjt mmwm ‘3‘ mwam has also not been proved The Will in question has been held not proved on the ground that the plaintiff as also his witnesses have deposed the contrary facts in their statem ants on oath which renders the Will a suspicious document. ‘The above finding is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and the Courts ‘below after censidering the discrepancies present in the depositions of the witnesses have arrived at a finding of fact that the appellan plaintiff has failed to prove due execution of the Will in his‘favour. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below regarding execuion of Will, is a finding of fact and no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication of this appeali Accordingly, the appeal being d void of merits is liable to be dismissed at the motion stage itself and the s me is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge