HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. S.A.No.31 of 2008 ApDeilant AppeSlant in first Appeilate Court PSainSsff Respondents Defendants Sukhnandan Roy, S/o Adharwa Satnami, aged 56 years, R/o Village- Chtchutiya, Tah. & Thana - Simga, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Hiraial, S/o Budu Satnami, aged about 60 years, R/o VJIIage- Chutchutiya, Tah. & Thana-Simga, Distt.-Raipur (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Coitector, Raipur (CG) Second appeai under Section IQOofthe Civii Procedure Code. Present: Shri S.K. Guha, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, PL for State. ORALORDER (Passed on 23.01.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appeliant is aggrievedby the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 passed by the IInd Addjfcional DJstrict Judge, Batoda Bazar in civil appeal No.33-A/2006 affirmlng the judgment and decree dated 12.5.2006 passed by the Civii Judge, Class-li, Baioda Bazar in civil suit No.29-A/2004, whereby the piaintiffs suit for declaration of titie and permanent injunction was dismissed. (3) Learned counsel for the appeiiant did not dlspute that the appellant/piaintiff did not file any document to show his possession over the sult land from the date of sale deed i.e. 23.4.1963. It has aiso not been disputed that besides his own testimony, no other evidence was adduced by the plaintiff. (4) On a perusal of the judgment delivered by the trial Court as also by the iower Appeilate Court, i am of the considered opinion that both the Courts have, on proper appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding that the sale dated 23.4.1963 was not an outright saie. The finding recorded by both the Courts below is pureiy a finding of fact. No substantiai question of iaw arises for determination in this appeai. (5) Accordingly, the appeai being devoid of any merit, is dismissed at the stage of admission. | Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya