^ <? ^ ' 8 bo?.-- IN THE mpH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH_AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. ^ / 2004 n8?s 3encl APPELLANT /PLAINTIFF / :PrahaIadram, - S/o Jogiram Lodhi Aged about 48 years Occupation- cultivation, R/o-VillageSalehkela, ^•^S^A^ ^^°8du^-'- 6ata SPONDENTS .^-^^ Teh-Chhuiekhadan, ,^-'?:-:-:?'^^S^ Dist: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) '"''^••l'^AV\.\V*^"" '' ^v^^S^ Versus ^ ^ Hemu, S/o Kalaram Sahu, Aged about- 63 years R/o-VillageSalehkela, Teh- Chhuiekhadan, Dist: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ('DefendantNo-l) '£) StateofChhattisgarh, Through Collecfor Rajnandgoan (C.G) Q3efendantNo-2) Ajooram, S/o Niranjan Lodhi Aged about 53 years R/o- Village Salehkela, Teh- Chhuiekhadan, Dist: Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DefendantNo-3) SECOND. CFVIL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100__QF^_CTVIL PR0GEDURECODE tt HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashaht Kumar Mlshra Secohd Appeal No.375 of 2004 Respondents versus Prahaladram Hemu and others Bii:::. Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsei forthe appellant. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondent No.2. Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Codeof Civil Procedure ORAL ORDER (Passedon15thFebruary,2010) Heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission. 2. The appellant/plaintiff preferred a suit for declaration that land bearing Khasra No.225 area 0.50 dismil' belongs to the plaintiff and land bearing Khasra No.1086/8 area 0.09 dismil belongs to defendant No.1 Hemu. He ateo prayed that he be declared owner of the land bearing Khasra No.225 on the basis of perfection of title by adverse possession. He also prayed that his name be recorded as owner of Khasra Np.225 and name of defendant No.1 be recorded as owner of KhasraNo.1086/8. 3. According to the plaintiff, he is the owner of Khasra No.1086/8 area 0.09 dismil situated at Village Salhekala, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, iistrict Rajnandgaon.. Defendant No.1 is the owner of Khasra No.225 ^rea 0.50 dismil situated atthesame village. They had exchangedthe -2-- lands and were in eontinuous possession of the lands belonging to other from the year 1 960 onwards, however, the revenue records i not changed. He pleaded Shat Khasra No.1086/8 area 0.09 dismil been sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.3, however, no sale- 1 has been executed by them. According to him, the dispute arose the plaintiff started to construct a wall on his land obtained in ixchange, therefore, the present suit was filed. 4. Defendant No.1 denied the plaintiffs case of exchange of !and, however, defendant No.3, in his written statement, admitted that there was an exchange and he has purchased land bearing iasre No. 1086/8 from defendant No.1. 5. The trial Court, on the basis of evidence avaiiable on record, dismissed the suit after finding that the piaintiff has not been able to prove the case of exchange.'The tria! Court observed that in view of the pleadings between the parties, the plaintiffs case of adverse aossession has also not been proved as there is absoluteiy no evidence to ho!d that the plaintiff has perfected his title by adverse possession. piaintiff who c ile deciding issue No.2, the trial Court held that it is the me up with a case of sale of tand of Khasra No.1086/8 bydefendantNo.1 in favour of defendant No.3. Defendant No.1 stated that he had from the father ;hased the land bearing Khasra No.1086/8 for Rs.80/- -.«•• of the plaintiff and thereafter he has sold this land to jdefendant No.3. Defendant No.3, in his written statement, has also iadmitfed fhat he has purchased this !and from defendant No.1 . ?L1 •: ;s»-¥a While deciding issue No.3, the tria! Court decided that defendant ).1 has failed to prove that he has purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 1086/8 from the piaintiffs father. 7. The appeliate Court has affirmed the findings of the tria! Court and dismissed the appea! and consequentiy the trial Court's judgment ind decree, dismissing the plaintiffs suit, has been affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that in view of the finding recorded in paragraph 20 of the tria! Court's judgment answering issue No.2 mentioned in paragraph 10 of the judgment, plaintiffs land bearing Khasra No.1086/8 may also belong to defendant No.1. 9. This Court is not convinced with the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court, while answering issues No.1 and 3, from paragraphs 11 to 19 of its judgment, has recorded a categorical finding that defendant No.1 has not been able to proye that he has purchased the iand bearing Khasra No. 1086/8 from the plaintiffs father. In this view of the matter, the argument of learned for the appeltant to the contrary is not acceptable because the finding of issues No.1 and 3 has already been afflrmed by theflrst [afeCourt. 10. Having perused the records of the Courts below, this Court perversity in the findings cecorded by the Courts below. in ippeal, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as it tolnterfere only when a substantial question of arises for deferminafion in the appea!. Since the appetiant has l!iU •siat'-'.s:.'ssias£sl-&:s-fi'.!^£^&si&-3::i':i...A^iL.:^'^-.;^^^ ^iSs*^-' i i^gj^jjjj !i'te^.. J':-'"i%& "^. .?' ^i „& •'t: ^- i!ed to point out any substantial question of law for determination in is appeal, the present second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at e admission stage. Sd/- ; Prashant Kumar Mishra' Judge -. r