^m:. X, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diijp Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appeilant PLalntjff Resporidents Defendants 11{'I •i?fc -^" T' -i SA.No. 312/2008 Gajadhar, S/o Bairam Maii, aged about 75 years, by'caste Mali, Resident of Viliage Darri Pali, P. S. Pusaur, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) » Versus 1. Bhaktraj, S/o Nanhuram Gupta, aged about 30years, 2. Nanhu, S/o Dewangan, aged about 50 years, Cate-Koita, 3, Jagatram, S/o Nanhu, aged about 30 years, 4. Gurucharan, S/o Nanhu, aged about 22 years, 5. Jaikumar, S/o Bhaktraj, aged about 20 years, 6. Hukum, S/o Tejram Koita, aged about 25 years, 7. Sagro, S/o Tejram Ko!ta, aged about 25 years, 8. Brijesh,S/o Dadula! Kolta, aged about 23 years, 9. Anand, S/o Bairam, aged about 30 years, 10. Tikam, S/o Kangalu kodh, aged agoutSO years, 11. Dehru, S/o Bu!u Ganda, aged about 32 years, 12. Dhano, S/o Jasketan Rawat, aged about 28 years, 13. Sapno, S/o Tikam Kondh, aged about 25 years, * 14. Tirath, S/o Tikam Kondh, aged about 30 years, 15. Shuitu, S/o Ekadasiya @ Pasru Pobiya, aged about22years, 16. Lekru @ Shuklaambar S/o Nanhu Maii, agedabout35years, 17. Nankun, S/o Bodhram Loher, aged about 40years, 18. Ramial, S/o Kartikram Pobiya, aged about 39years, 19. Matru, S/o Kriparam Pobiya, aged about34 years, A!l Resident of Village Darri Pali, P. S. Pusaur, Tahsll & District Raigarh (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C. ^iM %il '"•i '•••M i['M —2^- ^ •^ /- c Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, counse! for the appei!ant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 08-09-2008) Heard on admission. (2) Theappe!lantistheunsuccessfu!plamtiffJnboththeCourtsbelow.A suit for permanent injuncts'on was filed against the respondent herein. Both the Gourts beiow held that the appeilant/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit iand i.e.,Khasra No.257area 1.348 hectare situated in Viilage Darripaji P.C.No.34. The appellant/piaintiff had admitted jn^cross-examination that the respondents No.1, 3 & 4v^ere in possession of/4320 squarefeet iand out of the suit land. The tria! Judge recorded a finding that the suit iand was Abadi Land. On these premises,both the Courts have deciined to grant reiief to the appelJant/plaintiff. Thus, both the Courts beiow have on proper appreciation of evidence declined to grant injunction simplidtor as prayed for by the appeiiant/plaintiff. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is a findlng of fact. No substantia! questlon of law arises for determination in thls appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- DaipRa.sab.bDeshmukh Judge ^