l^ /T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUft Second^A^peal No. 335/2011 APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0. 1 RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT DEFENDANT N0. 2 VERSUS 1. 2. Laxmi Narayan Sahu, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Budhram Sahu, R/o Village Sendri, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). Vanvali (Vanmali) @ Banwari Lal, aged about 59 years, Plaintiff Vanvali claiming to be son of Budhram, R/o Village Koni, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bilaspur. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 not noticed. 1«» JUDGEMENT (Passedon 21/11/2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 20/9/2011 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 49-A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30/1/2011 passed by 9th Civil Judge Class-2, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 65-A/2009 of declaration and partition of suit property area 1.405 Hqtrs. situated at village Sendri, P.C. 16, Tahsil & District Bilaspur in favour of respondent No. 1. 2. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Akhil Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2 are heard. 3. Both thejudgment and decree impugned perused. 4. As per judgment and decree of both the Courts below, Court below has held that appellant & respondent No. 1 are brothers although, by different mother but by same father and has decreed the suit for declaration and partition. Court below has declared ^2 share of ^. y^ -2-- ^ ^l 5. appellant and V2 share of respondent No. 1, however, property left by father of appellant & respondent No. 1, in absence of any adverse prove, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality requiring any interference in second appeal, I do not find any substance or substantial question in present appeal. Consequently, second appeal is devoid of merits, same'is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the stage ofadmission. No order as to costs. I.A. No. 1 is also dismissed. i Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge