^^^?^ COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BllLASPUR SECQNDAPPEAL , 40SS006 Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. -a Tuisiram son of Shri Dataram (Since Dead) (through his legai heirs): ?abulai Nishad, son of Late Tulsiram, aged about 35 years, occupation - agriculture/ser/ice, resident of Dhaskamuda, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Smt. Kaberi Devi, widow Tulsiram, aged about 45 years, occupation - house work, resident of Vidyut Colony, Raigarh (CG) 1-c 5. 1. Uttara Kumari, daughter of Late Tuisiram, aged about 25 years, resident ofPadarmuda, Tah. Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ihanmati, widow of Late Dataram, aged about65years, Dhanmati, widow of Late Shriram, aged about45years, Bhanuial aged about 22 years, son of Shriram Narwada, son ofShriram, aged about 13 years (Minor) through natural guardian mother Dhanmati, widow of Late Shriram Mu. Susheeia, widow ofLakhanlal, aged about40years, Dasoda dauahter of Lakhanlal ' aaed about 22 years (Minor) Suresh Kumar son of Lakhanlal aged about 15 years (Minor) Santoshi, daughter of lakhanial aged about 13 years, (Minor) Jyoti, daughter of Lakhanlal, aged about 11 years, SS..NO. 8 to 10 are minors, through their natural guardian mother Susheeia, widow of iate Lakhan Lal. Kartikram son of Shri Shambhuram, aged about 55 years, ,___._ v^y^. TTl-n";:--! "TC~ CF! All are agricufturist^and resident of village Dhaskgmuda, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG) Versys 1. Gangaram, son of Shambhuram, aged aboui 65 years, occupafion agriculturist, resident ofvillage Dhaskamuda, Tah. Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 2. State of Chhattssgarh through - the DistrictCollector, Raigarh (CG) Present: Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counse! for the appeliants. (Passed on 22"° March, 2007) 1. Heard on admission. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit No. 11A/2003 before the 1st Civii Judge, Class-l, Raigarh claiming the relief that there was no partition between the parties and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for partition of his share of the suit land. The defendants resisted the claim and pieaded that there was an oral partition between the parties and the plaintiffs as aiso the defendant No. 1 Gangaram were aiready in possession of their respective shares. The iearned 1st Civil Judge, Class-l, Raigarh recorded a finding that an oral partition had taken place befcfl/een the parties who were in possession of their respective shares. On this ground, the suit was dlsmissed. The 1 Appeilate Court also affirmed the findings recorded by the lower Court and dismissed the civii appeal No. 17A/2004 vide judgment dated 23.2.2006. 2. The oniy point urged by the tearned counsel for the appeliants is that the finding recorded by both the Courts below that there was an oral partition and the plaintiffs were in possession of their shares awarded to them is erroneous. However, on a perusa! of the record of civil sult No. 11A/2003 as also the judgment of the lower Court having been affirmed by ttie 1^ Appeliate Court, l am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have on a proper appreciation of the evldence, oral as weli as documentary, recorded a finding that there was an oral partition between the parties in pursuance to which the parties were in possession E3= 'T- .V ^:, 1 of their respective shares allotted to them. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 3. As a result, this Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ]n view ofthe above, IVI.C.P. No. 297/2007 for stay, I.A. No. 3556/200S for taking 'Vakalatnama' on record and I.A. No. 451/2007 for urgent hearing stand disposed of. _ -' Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh| Judge ' Priya