^ ~~:> •t A^^ <C^WL7P:B' Singl@ BgnBf^ -ff^ ^ ^"... ^^'" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) APPELLANT ^LAINTIFF LA.No. ^OX1 /06(S.B.1 Raymoti B/o Roup Sai, Aged about 42 years W/o Jethu, Occupation-Former^R/o slihabhatha, Teh.-Gharghoda, Distt.-Raigarh(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y. <^^°^ ~^^^sf- ^o ^. G.i^ 1. Bhagwati W/o Nanhe Gond ^. Bhagirathi S/o Gajadher Oond 3. Purna S/o Gajadher Gond R/o No. 1 Village Liabra & No2&3 ViUage Karapali, Teh. Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh 4, StateofC.G. ^" Through:-CoIlator, Raigarh v..^ ^ APPEAL l^NDBR SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCBDURE COED ff^' HI6H COURT OF 0<HATTIS6ARH BIb^SPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 104/2006 Roymoti Vs. Bhagwatiomd others ^ Appearance: Shci V.K.Pondey. counsel for the appelkait. ORALORbER (20.6.2006) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J Heard on admission. (2) This is the ptaintiffs Second Appeal, fited under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure agajnst the jud9ment and decree dated 5.1.2006 passed in Civjl Appeal No. 27-A/2002 by the 3rd Additional District Judge(FTC), ftaigarh(C@) arising out of the jud9ment and decree dated 1.8.2001 passed in Civil Suit No.19- A/1997 by the Civil Judge, Class-H. ^harghocta. The plaintiff lost in both 1+»ecourts. (3) The facts of the case are that the suit land described Jn Schedute-A of the plaint were the properties of owner^iip and possession of father of the plaintiff and original defendant namely- ftatai Bai. Plaintiffs. Raymoti and ftatai Bai were the real sisters. The plaintiff claims that the tands of Schedule-A of the ptaint were given in her absotute ownership and possession by her father namely- 6upsai on 20.4.1955 by making a parl-jtjon in the family. She claims @ ^L- v' to be in exclusive possession of the aiit lands from the date of ixirt'ition and since the defendants ctoimed a partition in this property also, she filed the suit for cteclaration of title and also for confirmation of possession on the basis of her title. The claim was resisted by the defendants. Jhesy pleaded 1+iat the suit lands were never given in the owr^rship and possession of the plaintiff and as such there was no partition in the faniily. The trial Judge framed various issues in this cexse and vide answer to issue No.3 and 4, it was held that the plaintiff could rwt prove that the suit tands were given to her in absolute owncrdiip and posse^ion by her father on 20.4.1955 and furt+ier also she could not prove a partition as pteacted by her. On these grounds, the suit was dismissed. (4) Against the aforesald judgment ouicl decree passed by the trial Court/the ptaintiff filed an appeal before 1+ie lower appellate court But, the lower appellate court also took the same view and dismissed the appeal of th®plaintiff. ^>) Learned counsel for the apj^sltant/pkiintiff arcpes that th® findings in retatjon to the part-ition as w»ltas delivery/transfer of property in favour of the plaintiff are perverse» His ^ibmission is that the triat Court completely ignored the oral as ^^11 as documentary evidence adduced in this case. He refers ta the document Exhibit P-1, which isan Sr/wwoflur (Agreement) in which it has been mentioned that the father of the ptaintiff had yyen the suit lands in her absolute ownership ond possession on 20.4.1995. This document is said to have been writl-en at the 'mstwice. of Rupsai(father), whose thumb impression is shown to be on the k . r. (6) The learned trial JudQe took this view that the Gontents of the documents have not been proved in accordance with law ond further that there is only oral evidence of partition as adduced by the plaintiff. The trial Court- also took this fact into notias 1+»atall the revenue records stand on the joint names of plaintiff and defendants which suggest 1+»atafter the death of th®father, the property wcis succeeded by the two dau9hters and both of them were the joint owiers of the said property. It is on these grourds, th®suit was dismissed wid the claim of the pkxintiff that she was the absolute owner of 'riie property was not upheld. Simihr view has also been taken by the appellate court. (7) After goin9 throu9h the records of the case, I am of the opinion -Hiat the concurrent findin9S recorded by the two Courte below are not perverse omd the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, worth consideration. There is no merit in the flppeal. The same is dismissed <xt the motion stoge itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge sunita