tV^ HI©lfr€OtlfrrOFeHNICTT®GARH.BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (PSaintiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) /' SeGonclAoiieal No.312of^WS Gend Prasad, S/o Ved Prakash Tiwari, aged 67 years. R/o Viltage Bamhandih, Tahsil and Dtetrtet Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Mokram, S/o Chanisat, aged 30 years. 2. Laxman, S/o Thany, aged ^ yeaffs. 3. Dhanendra, S/o Sukhen, aged 30 years. 4. Ghanshyam, S/o Gend Prasad, aged SOyears. 5. MotHal, S/o Gend Prasad, aged 45 years. 6. Rohit, S/o Gend Prasad, aged 40 years. All R/o Village Bamhandih, Tahsil and District fi4ahasamund (C.G.) {Second appeal under Sectton 100 ofthe Code c^ Civil ProeeAire, 1908} Present: Mr. RajesltKumarSharma,counselfortheappeHant. Smal^BenclK Mon'bte-MF. T.P. Shaima. J ORALJUDGMENr (2-7-2009) 1. This is a seeond appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against the judgment & decree dated25-3-2009 passed by the 1st Addjtional District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeat No.27A/2008, affirmmg the judgment&decreedated 30-6-2007 passedbythe 1st CivilJudgeC!as&- l,MahasaiTtandinGivMSuitNo.2A/2006,wherebythesuitfordeclaratJon of property of deceased Ayodhya Prasad, the aKeged father of the wife of the^ appellant, after the death of Ayodhya R-asad, was dismissed. 2. I have heard leamed Gounsel for the appetlant and perused the impugnedjudgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appetlarit submtts that for just decision of this second appeat substantiat questton (rf law involves that whether the present appellartt has succeeded the property of AyodhyaPrasad, father f^^^^ ^ oyhis altegedwife. Leamed counsel arguedthat after the death of first husband of RoWni Bai, daughter of Ayodhya Prasad (since deceased), Ayodhya Prasad took the appellant to his house and dectered that the appellant is the husband of his widow daughter Rohini Bai. The appeKant was residingwith Rohini Bai as her husband. Even at present also he is r^iding with Rohinl Bat as her husband. After the death of Ayodhya Prasad the present appellant has fited suft that he is ownerof the property after the death of Ayodhya Prasact. Thesuit was ctismissed by the trial Court and the same was affirmed by the 1st AddJtional District Judge, Mahasamund by the impugnedjudgment & decree. 4. Admittedly, according to the submi^ion of counsel for the appellant, copyof thelmpugned judgment & decree and the judgment & decree of the trial Court,Ayodhya Prasad died leaving behind her only daughter Rohini Bai as sole successor. Accordtng to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.1956daughterofadeceased Hindu dying intestate will succeed the property of a male Hindu after his death in ease of sole survivor. But husband of the said daughter is not included in the list of Heirs in Class 1 ofthe Schedule appended to Section 8 ofthe Act. 5. In absence of any statute the present appellant, even if he is husband of Rohini Bai, daughter ofdeeeased Ayodhya Prasad, is having no interest over the property left by deceased Ayodhya Prasad. The Court below has rightly dismissed the suft. 1 do not find any substantial question of iaw involving in this seeond appeal. The second appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed, in limfne. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge