BEFORB THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR. Second Appeal No. \^ /2009 gindgtfi! APPELLANT [plalntiff) e. ^^-^ RESPONDENTS Dulara Bai, w/o Deonath Sahu aged 79 years, R/o Antarganwa Tahsil - Nawagarh, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) Ghuruwa Bai W/o Jagdish Sahu aged 54 years, R/o ViUage Deory, Tahsil- Bhatapara Distt Raipur (C.G.) 2, KejaBai W/o Bhagi Ram Sahu Aged 47 years, Occupation - Cultivator R/o Village Dayalpur; Tahsil- Nawagarh Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Collector Durg Distt.-Durg (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION ^ CTVll, PROCEDURE CODE T HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR APPELLANT Plaintiff Second AppealNo. 14 of2009 Dulara Bai Versus RESPONDENTS Ghurowa Bai & others (SECOND APPEALUNDER SECT^N^TO_^_CQDEi:>£CrVttiPROCEDUEE) (Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the appellant, Shri Sanjeev A^rawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 23.03.2011) Heard on admission. 1. The instant Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, Distt. Diirg, in Civil Appeal No. 2-A/08, whereby and whereunder the plaintiff's/appellant's appeal has been dismissed afGrming the judgment and decree dated 14.12,2007, passed by Ist Civil Judge, Class I, Bemetara, in Civil SuitNo. 43-A/05, 2. Facts in brief are : plaintiff instituted a suit claiming relief of possession over the share of deceased Jethiya Bai in the siiit propert^' after partition. According to plaintifi; pursuant to oral partition, the parties are in separate possession over their respective shares in the suit property described in Schedule-A of plaint. The plaintiff is entitled for possession over late Jethiya ^^^SM^^^^^^^^^^I^^ "•^. ^f r "%> -%.. s £^ gal »y "^-: 6. Bai's share on which defendant No. 1 & 2 are claiming their rights on the basis ofaWill which is forged. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led, submissioas made and material placed on record, held Will is genuine, pursiiant to oral partition, parties are in separate possession over their respective shares in the suit property described in Schedule-A of plairit, and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff's First Appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate court after re-appreciating the entire evidence available on record. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to poiat out any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. I also do not find any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qtta-non for the exercise ofthejiirisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Leamed counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case^ In the absence of any substantial question oflaw arises for determination ofthis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. 1B ^ 7. In view of above, since no substantial question arises for detennination ofthe case, the appeal is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge »ll Sahu •ya