IN THE HDN’BLE HIGH CGURT OF JUDICELTURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SEsnNnAPPEAL N0. J37 m4 KDeuram Sfn- Mnhm' Gund, \‘f Aged about 4U yeara, Village-Dungari Para, Kaxlharpuxi Tahsil-Kailker, Distt. Kanker, (CG) APPELL£NTIPLAINTIFF VERSU3 a 7 Waugh-Collector, Kanker, Distt-Kanker, (CG) RESPGNDENTSIDEFENDENTS V' SEEQND APPEAL UIS 1l]I] OF THE CUBE OF CI'WL PEGGEDURE 1. Deuki Bai Wfu-Durjarl Singh Gnnd, w \y' ' f—‘uged about-32 ”Ears, r Village-Dungaripara, Kanharpun', Tahsi‘l-Kankar, Distt. Kank'Er, CG V V ‘ . ‘\ g 2. Etate Elf CG. XI—HC—22 3am, m, W. @ 3n€vnxm§ €3‘A.No.11§z/labk Wm mg 200 ; Shm‘ Bhaskar Payasi, Counsel for the appellant. Shn' RN. Jha, Counsel for the respondent No. 1. u ‘ None for respondent No.2. Heard on admission as well as on M.C.P.No. i0112005. Appellant/plainw flled. a suit for declan'ng sale deed dated 03/05] 1985 executed in favour of respondent No. 1 as void and for grant of permanent injunction. Lemned trial Court} after evaluating the evidence held that the suit land is ancestral property of Mohni Gond, Mohni Gond after receiving consideration has sold nine acres of land in favour of respondent No.1 by a registered sale deed dated 03,’05/ 1985 and therefore, dismissed the suit. Being aggn'eved by the said judgment and decree appellant/plaintiff pn'ferred appeal that mas registered as Civil Appeal No. 43—A/ 99. Learned First Additional District Judge, Kanker vide judgment and decree dated 26/ 12/ 2003 affirmed all the. findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. a Appellant in memo of appeal stated that the following are the substantial questions of law, to be considered in second appeal, m. W$I mm aw‘n'iwqFsa mm‘mm " WW§WW %ar%m3x1%a . bs/oslzoos , Appellant] plamtttt‘ has ' vermd that the land was Iecorded in the name of Mohni Ram and total land comprises of 18.44 acres. l Plaintiif and respondent No. 1 son and daughter of Mohni Gond though they are related by h blood. ‘Plaintitf himself has pleaded that on 03/ O5[ 1985 Molmi nd sold nine acres of land. by a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1. He challenged the sale deed on the ground f fraud, but both the Courts below did not hold the sale deed to e a result of fraud and hence have held that the sale deed exec ed in favour of reksxpondeut No.1 is valid. ' . 0 XI-HC-22 3a W, WE,W W Wm Wm a 200 m ............................. mm; mam §Rizxai%agi mm wm Wmww wr§wm “1) Whether due execution ‘ I atiestaiion and validity of the deed 1; of sale, dated 03/05/1985 (ExP/ 1) could be uphe d even in absence of the original sale deed? 2) Wheiher the lower Appellaie Cour! erred in holding at para 20 of its V - \ judgment that the due execution 0f - ’ ihe alleged sa} (ExP/ 1) was never ‘ questianed by e plainlij7? ’ " " 3) Whether in absence of paniiion, ‘ the Defendant 0.1 Deoki Bai could enter into pass ssion Qf the suil land which has be n held as ancestral property of he father of the appellant?” ' XI-HC—22 According to law relating to transfer of property and registration of sale deed, when plaintiff himself is averring that it has bcen executed by the person in whose name lands am thsre it §is not necassary that original sale deed should be produced. Here it is not out of place to tnention that in judgment passed by First Additional District Judge, Ranker at paras 9, 10 and 12 has considered the question regarding execution of the 'said sale deed and found that the on'ginal sale deed has been duly produced in the trial Court and the trial (hurt received the same in pursuant to order dated 23/01/ 1998. averment that Mohni Gond registered sale deed in favour admits the execution of the invalid for want of considen evaluating the evidence have for due considerah'on, and sa only for declaration of title an Dispute regarding possession of fact. When plaintiff himself has made transferred ninetacres of land by a of respondent No. 1, it means plaintitf sale deed challenging its execution ition. Taking into considerati( Courts below as well as the r the suit was completely basec decided the question raised b‘ the plaintiE for relief, which Both the Courts below after held'that the sale deed was executed [e is valid. The case of the plaintiff is d declalation of sale deed to be void. is not a question of law, but question in the findings arrived at by both the >leading of plaintiff] appellant himself l on facts and both the Courts below f both the parties and held disentitle he has sought, I am of the opinion XI—HC-22 W am mm m‘izsw Yfhat this appeal does not inv 31ve any substantial question of law; itherefore, the appeal is liable to bexdismissed and is accordingly ‘dismissed. t Consequently, M.C.P.1\o.101/2005 and I.A.No.1736/200 s§and disposed of. I Sdl- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (@W) 5