HIGH COURT OF CHI-M! !;§§ARH‘ BILAsPUR Second w &. 443 g 2004 Single Bench: Hou‘blo 5M Diiip Raosnhob Dcshmkh. J. APPELANTS 1. Kha‘foon Baa, wiaow of ln‘l'z Rumjm Beg, PLAINTIFFS Aged nbou? 60 years, ’ 2. Inayu'r Beg, S/o late Ramjan Beg, aged abou140 , 3. Amin Beg, 5/0 me Ramjan Beg, aged abau'r 35 years, 4. Ishak Beg, 5/0 late Ramjan Beg, aged abouf 33 years, 3 5. Sayaw Bano D/o Iafe Ramjan Beg, aged 11 chow 23 years, Plaintiffs no.1 1'0 5 k/o Risuipnm, Dhamfarj, Tahsil and Distric'r-Dhamfari, C.6. 6. Mahmudn Begum wife Alauddin, aged about 45 years, R/o Kora, Rampur, Disfricf-Raipur (65.) 7. Hamida Begum wife of Nurali, aged abom' 38 years, R/o Gariyabandh, Td1sil- ‘ Gariyabandh, Disfric'r-Raipur (C.6.) 8. Shakila Bano wife of Mdnaboob Khan , aged abou1' 30 years, R/o Aamdi, Parsada, i Abhmpur, Diswic'r-Raipur (C.G.) ~ VER$V$ RESPONDENTS . 1) Badrunnisha widow of Abid Ali, aged abouf DEFENDANTS 60 years, ' 2. Hasan Ali S/o Abid Mi, aged abou‘i' 30 'Vmsi 3. Abrar Mi 5/0 Abid Ali,.aged about 28 years. . ‘ . Shah‘isfa D/o Abid Mi, aged about 25 years. 5. Bakarunniéia D/o Abid Ali, aged abouf 22 years, ‘ All R/o Imri Bazar, Dham‘i'ari, District- Dhamtari,C.6. ,a ' / Present- Shri Vishnu Koshfu, Counsel for fhe appeilmfs. Shri R.S.Putel, counsel for 1he respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 14.3.2007) Th: following oral order of flue Cour'r was passed by-Bilip Raosaheb Dcshmukh, J‘ Heard on admission. (2) The appellam is aggrieved by fhe judgment and decree dafed 15.05.2004 passed by The Additional Disfric‘l' Judge, Dhamfari in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2003 passed by the Ist Civil Judge Class-I, Dhamtari in Civil Suit No.14-A/1997 dismissing the plaintiff's wit was affirmed. (3) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is a tenant in the house shown by letters “A‘, 'B", ‘C" and “0" in the map annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff claimed ownerétip of the land adjacent to the house mentioned above and marked as by words " 5a”, “Da‘ “E" 'Fa", “Kn" md ‘Kha" in the plaint map on the ground that the adjacent land was purchased by the plaintiff from Abdul Habib Q Usman Abba by an unregistered sale deed dated 01-05-1949 for a sum of Rs.50/— The Defendants/respondents herein resisted the wit on the ground that sale deed dated 01.05.1949 was bogus and led evidence, oral as well as documentary to prove their title over the said lmd in question. (4) Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the sale deed alleged to have been executed 5y Abdul Habib on 01-05-1949 was a bogus document which was got executed in ‘ ,5, coHusion with Surdnr Khan. This finding is hrnn! on ‘the foHowing grounds:- (A) That in an earlier proceeding before fhe Rem Confroiiing Authoriiy, fhe piainfiff had menfioned 'thaf he had purchased 1’he adjacenf land from one Girdhari La! Mishr-a. (B) Thuf Snrdur Khan, the o'H'esi'ing wimess was n miner an 'rhe alleged dafe of execu'rion of The dacumenf da'red 01-05- 1949 and insfiy, (C) On ihe ground 'rhaf The defendams had led overwheiming evidence omi as well as documentary fo prove 'rheir ownerdwip onthe dispu'fed adjacent land as sham above. (5) Both fhe Courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding lhaf ‘fhe plainiiff’s am was barred by limitafion under Arficle-58 of +he Limifol'ion Act since if was noi filed within 3 years when ihe righf to sue firs? accrued fa ihe plaintiff fo obtain The declaratory relief. (6) Having heard 5hri Vishnu Kosh'la, learned counsel for fhe appeilanfs, so far as fhe finding recorded by hofh the Courfs below fhai ihe sui? was barred by limiia‘rion is concerned i'r is not in conformify with law because cwse of action arose in favour of ihe plaini’iff only offer finai order was passrd by 'rhe Ren‘l' Controlling Auihority. However, ihe appellafe Cour-f rightly concurred with 'the finding recorded by the Court below that the sale deed dated 01-05— 1949 is a fictitious document not conferring any valid title to the plaintiff. Such a finding is based on proper appreciation‘of the evidence oral as welt as documentary and is also based“ on sound reasoning. Since the aforesaid finding is purely a finding of fact, in my considered opinion, no wbstantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. Even if the piaintiff’s suit was held to be , #4, wi'thin limi'fa'rion, fhe finding 'fhof The sale daed dated 01-05-1949 is , ficfifious, being impeccable and also being a pure finding of fact, no subsfom‘inl question of law arive for determinnfion in fhis appeal. (7) Consequently, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission; No order as to costs. (8) In view of above, I.A.No.Z1/2005 which is an application for taking rent deposit receipt on record and M.(C.)P.No.171/2007 whid'i is an application for vacating stay stand disposed of. SN‘BDES‘Www mu? “Aos Midge /~ AdE Tumme \ \