CD. ICIS^ K^r^^ ^W RKIII; IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. /2006 APPELLANTS/ DEFENDANTS ^w\y ^y&y .^%r w%v / ^-t \^ ^/J / -^'./. / ^' 1. Mansharam, S/o Pooran Sahu, Aged about 24 years ^2. Keshavram, S/o Pooran Sahu Aged about 23 years 3. Smt. Ghasin, ^" Wd/o Pooran Sahu, Aged 50 years All R/o Village Narra, Post Office Narra, Thana Bagbahara, Tehsil & District Mahasamund, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF Musammat Makhyarin Bai D/o Late Raghu Sahu, y 'W/o Bisahu Sahu, R/o Samhar , Post office Samhar, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) \^^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. ~/l:.ll .(-.• HIGH COyRTOF CHHATTISQARH AT Sinafe Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justlce Prasliant Kumar Mishra Secorsd No.'834 /1006 • Appellants Defendants Respondent Plainltff Versys Mansharam and others. Musammat Mal<Aiyarln Bai • Shrl Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the appellants. Shri A.P. Sharma, coynsei forthe respondent. Aooeal Undler Secfion 100 of ttse Coele ot Civil Proeedyre ORAi. ORDER. (17.02.2010^ The by againstwhom the Courts have tor dedaratlon 'of title & possession and for permanent Injunction. 2. The plalptlff f No. 1 tiled a So 2.5 of land out ot the property in -Scheclute 'A' ofi'the grounci that the are the However, in an 26-02-1992 the in the of ¥fltnesseshave to alSot 2.5 ot in possesslon.-The' the 3, • The the and a counter clasm for of their'title of Schedute.'B' property. to no such agreement, as cS'almed-'by'th0 plalntlif, the and thatthe plaintiffhas wrbngiy an for her In 'B\ which Is the said. in ^ the ''.. . ^ 1 ^ T' ^ 4. The trial Court on the of evidence avallabte on record found ^at the ©xecutsonof the agreement dated 26-02-1^2 is proved and that the have been the.pteiiitlff's rig.ht over the Is to a of pos^eBsion. The by the trlal Covrt by the Court.. 5. . Both the Coyrts have the execytion of the agreement Ex. Prt has proyed by (P.W.-2) Pakaiu PateJ and (P.W.-3) Babulal, who present at the tlme of execution of the agreement. The etefense of the 1 as to thelr minorlfy of the of execution of Ex. P,?1 has been disbelieved recording ihe finding that on the said the more 18 of age. The trial Court, In 13 of the judgment has a finding that on 26-02-1992 .the No. 1 & 2 were than 18 years because whiie a on 07 04»1993theyhave shown their age as.25 years. and 23 years, respectiveiy. The defendante case of gift of the sult foy Karmoytin Bal In of the Puran Sahu has glftwas in relation to a propeFfy whose value on the of alieged gift Rs»800/^ whlc-h coyld not'have of a:. It fe-a speclfic fmdingof the trlal Court as well as She Court that the gift'dsed Ex.D/2 has no evidentiar>? value and She Ex, D^l and Ex. D13 are they do nc^ carry anyeviderrtiaryvatue. , - ^ 6. In vsew ofthe co-nc-urrent tlndlng by the Courte below about the execytlon of the agreement dated 26-02-1^2 (Ex. P/1), thls Court rannotun^ettle tie flndings of f^te. recorded by .the two below irt 100 of tt^e CP.C. Asregards the coynter of the present /'defendants, the tivo Courts be!ow have <: -3>- ^) diismissed the cQ.unt@r dasm after recording a findlng that the plaintiff has proved Ex. P/1 and she Is ent'rtied to a decree for declaratlon m tltie and possesslon. The dismtesal of thca counter claim Is atso foynd to the properandtegalasthere ls.no Infirniltyor IIS^gallty In the said part of the judgmentpassed bythe Courts below. : 7. In th® of Sanfc •of incila an^ :vs. S.N.Soyal, 8 SCC 92, the Hon'ble. Sypreme :^&^to'^^m'^^ sitbstantlal qyestlon of law. Paragraph 13 of the report is herein below: , ' ' ' . "13,- S^cond KB In €a^@3 whlch substanW Qiies^ons of f&w. The word "substanW' p?Bftx@d te ihe m the f^r in^cteci fo ?efer oofy to of few of'-^nera/ fmpoftan^, byt to Impact or of.ffre'gyesfion of tew WT ffi^ decfsson in ^m Iss bst^&en tt^ pariies. "Substsn^ai quesisons ' of iaw" not oniy gyesfoos.iof isw of fout of few arisif^ In a a-s !n IQQ'CPC^any qije-s^wt of iaw wNch-affecfo the fsna! sn a c&ss Is a/ • ofiaw as Ite A fhe wt!t noi &©a of Isw. - • m -e. on a of by t?fe Court orby th&.H^h Court 'st ffmi -^ fhe of few. If a of i&w wh&n a oflaw, whsh Is noi nnaiiy by this Coyrf for by ih©High Court far a^ the for con^icferaflon m tbe case.. Byf thls has te be in lf?e {S & of iaw and fte fmver has or ffghttyappSed suchclesr •enisncfa^on of wtli noi be a aflmy may'be Qf? tte offrer hand, If^Bmi^ of tew &y #^s Cocirt for fey Ihe / ^ felrf tfw or .or fte same, and cofrect of the tew^as cfectered or thfe (^yrf fo^ fhe iwS- te & different the jf?vo.te a as ffie Is sn enunciatlon of iaw by tbis CoL'ii (or lf?e tte ha^ Ifte if the 1-s.: 'to the Higfe Coyrf fhe. or te e ^n It ^ar? &e of ^w .for cor^feferafiof?. therefor©, &e a as to a of tew in a B© as It ?? 8. the said by ttie Court to the of thls case, this Coyrt finds that the has not to raise any sybstantia! of law Invo.lved for determination in this appea!. 9. in tie result tie 100 of Civil Procedure Code fa'sSs and is hereby atthe stage. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^< Bl