® IN THE HIGH COU^T^FJUMCATUREOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 72004 APPELLANT PLAINTIFF ^y. - ^fQ:^-- ^^^•-^ ^-^' ^iftESPONDENTS ^DharamSinghSahu §|jjgj@, Aged abut 60 years S/o Shri Ram Shiveram Sahu Village Salihabhata P.C. No.IO RJ.Circle Patewa, The. &, Distt. Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS I : : ! suKii^/ntw1 . Sulch'bai-Wd/p Sundar Lal Aged about 65 years R/o Village Salihabhata, P.,C.No.lO,The. 8s District Mahasaraund C.G. ,A\ '2. Gomati Bai W/o Narsingh Sahu Aged about 43 years R/o village Turijha P.C.No. 121, Pot Tendukona Tah. 85 Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) ^. Urmila Bai W/o Tikam Sahu Aged about 35 years R/o Village Barbaspur P.C.No. 125, R.I.Circle Khallari, The. & Distt. Mahasamund CG ^4. Moti Bai W/o Hetu Sahu R/o Village Dhodhara P.C.No. 216 R.I.Circle, Pithora, The. 8s Distt. Mahasamund C.G. Appellant 1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Sunder Lal Sahu 1 ^ II (The defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit & first appeal) 5. Heeralal S/o Sundar Lal aged / a-bout__Caste Soni R/o Village Talihabhata P.C.No.lO R.I. Circle Patewa, The. Ss District Mahasamund C.G.(Defendant No. 2 in Civil suit 85 first appeal) y6. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mahasamund C.G. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTIONlOO OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE S.i ^, lit' BiSI .i»Ui ramm H iFT] t, Sfll<1*|la, ISKtl.Hy t/ W*S ^T Ts^ri^sn^T 5^IR7Wt(f ,/ .S.....t3t-..M0^5 '5%/° Ll """"'"'""^^•••--fCT ^OO' sii^r^Rnw^ftn ^l .ri4,_^3inn^ SIiri Y.C. Shanaa Sh.il A^liil A^i'uwsl. F1-i HSSJ^I 011 -S(iiEiissio& AT^T^?'1lp4T!t/TslR^1ttif¥' fi' - •~jL-jr'"-"~~'3-"-*'* ^.-^-^—-..—i.-..—g^ wifer-N-qrejf •?fe^t •d^Rzre ^7 3lf:tTCI 31^1 witii SIiri ^ivek Ra.tiioi^:. counsd for appellant. axiel I-;&w^rGr for tli€i^suoudeiit/S-t&te l&d- 3- siiit for T)en3etu-Ql iiiiuiictioii, inteT' jHfi T)1^Hd_iTi^ tlist lie is (^wiier of the suit Isjid bes^iii^ K'lis-si^, No>75 sj^a. O 13 s-cres siic^ is iii i3Csssessioii of tlie s^ii's -. but tlis de.fe.Bdants Siinclerlal anql Heeralal are attemptnig to clispossess hioi, Th.e suit xs7as ojsposed by' defeu-d.aiits Suuderlal aud Hcerslftl.Etocl couutei'" olsirii foi* ^-cdsT&tion o.f title snd- ;d£ii2is.£es ,4 ^1^n4 •") ? Q?d ^vf +"!" LJ-^StL ^/ •^"~ ^± iU- was filed bv thfisi s?ifer aSa on tlie Isjid is io. 'oosscssioii of Siliiclci'lol wlio is owiiei" o'F it; Rot.Ti tlip "D?3i'^'.if?s ^sT^- bu^noi^t oftlieiii' Tesi^sctivs CQ.SGS led oi'oJ siiff f1^c'i^l.T?f:l^t-?^Tir f^x^idf^iTd'ST AftsT dus c'ousi.cici'^-tiou of evid.dio? 1^—r^-ic^ Civil iJiid^s. Clfeiss I. Mali^s^jnund-. h.eld- th&t the .Rl')T)C^lRTlt/l')l^illti'ff 1s Uot i.U ^30SS£SSioi~I-of ttic suit. loxxd-; I^ey oonti's. lielcl t^ist Sunclsrlsl ^ot tlls slisxe of SIivaiiifle:v i.c.. 1/.3T{:1 slj.ars in tlis suit lajid sji<l 8- Dart bf the suit laxid- is u-i his nossessioii^ TIie suit oiici couiiter cl^iisi fcc^tli were ciisiiiiss6A bv tlie tris-1 Court vide iudemRnt and decree d&ted 21'08'2001 "assed iti Civil Svlt No-171 °A?'2000. BciTi^ l aa@Erri£vcd bv tlic iudsiBcnt £iii<l deci^e. nls_b3tifF.^ sj')T>sllsiit filcd --/ —j-^f 8ji a.pDssl begj'hig Civll A Mn 41- A/2002 s.^aio.st le^ol i^Drcseiitetivcs of deces-sed. SuuderlpJ-wlio [^^Rg^ Xl-HC-22 3D^[^iT K.-w'h sf^v :^4 ^ff^I c ?:5?( '^i'iiid'M, ^TTI'y'itD, facii'yy ®(iif?TIF?^ <4fWtl gfflHl '^ 200 f^^ar' 311^1'TOIIW ^lfgtl died afSer the jiidgrnent a4d decice passed by the trial Coiirt and other defeudants. . Learaed Ist AppeBa| held fhat fhe whole ofthe appellant aad appellaiit i^ land. Leamed Ist AppeUj judgintent and decree of th^ eBa^e Co'art appicciated fhe evidence and -* .. t®. - . - .' bitit land did not faf in the shai-e of the not ia possession over the whole-siut peU^-te Court after afErming the findings, trial Coiirt dismissed the appeal. f^ppeSpti Appellant in memQ questions stating those to of appcs-l has propOsed fhe foUowiiii Ibe substantial questions oflaw:- /) tgnonng Land Sze Recwrds} 2,1 Whethel: igrwiinff in favo^ dispuie^ rewgnis, duiiszg 3) \Vhethe[ igtionru} ihere is\ 4) Whethe cnHt<n*ili TnTT?if ^ fe^t Ti^PE^R ^?aifSgir sn^r WhelMpr the cauris beloiuJusttfiedSy fiw prtwisions of Sectimi 117 of ^evenue Code, 1959 pertaining to cf genuineneas of Revenue fjue^uon the. eourt below jiistified by fhe entries in the records of rights ir of the plwntiffs with respect to lund, 'tuhich luas subseguently ed by fhe Revenue Authorities setSeinerfi operaiiqn. «. Vze ihe (smrt below jusiified by the stafutory presuinption wten ]no plewSng or evidence on reversal of tfzat ^fresuwptwn. the. cxmrf_below Jtistified by ^I,iSW"> T~ XI-HC-22 BIW •s"..: 1 ;. Jiiii lll;:li; an^I^il K-U<h 3^1 stiHi^^d 'TE? -iii^icf'y, »iii'M'is,i^iray *iii)?trgr(n<») •^ 200 •f^^CT' sifer ^grw ^ICT ignonngl sepcwat^ partitior^ rieed >io< c> Whether] the afuri beloiu ju-stified, by igfWfirig\ the foua that the Com.missiwwr's report d^ats imth thepossession on the day of insp^cdon, whereas (»ie probe sriould ha.ve tfpen abaut the le.ngfh of the possess^oii.. •6) W)w1her[ hoidinci plaiatiff was aUotted fhe •» since then. Leamed triai the land whereas only 0.0^ each of fhe fhi'ee brofhers ct)Nici<4iTi *iiHcif ^ 'f^st <rii<^« ^srfigtTsn^r the factum- of partition and fwssession despite this fcwt of ivas adrnifted (adnutted fdc^s be proved). (fte <»urt betoiu jv-stifiet that the suit for perpetucd irgundidp. cannot be maintainable unless relief folf' recoveiy oj, possgssion is afeo ^ven in the cx'.se the plaintiffrmght be disp^ssessed during ihe pendency of the suit.' Acconling to pleadi3|igs of both the parties the qziestion involved iri. the suit was wlijefher as a result of partition. in 1956-57 hple suit fand or only l/3*'d of it and whether plamtiifwas in po^session over the whole of fhe suit land 'ourt held that plaiutiff fafled to prove ttiat he is owner aad in p^ssession over the suit land since 1956- 57 and evaliiatmg the evid^nce accepting the report Ex.D/3 held that the defendailt Sunderllal is in nossession over 0.08 hectare of hectare of suit laod is in possession of tfae plaiatiff, First Appel|late Cou-rt sAer closc scrutniy of fhe * . .'••'• • 1 •• . • . •'.•'•. evidence held that the parfpition took place 40 - 45 years ago and iccaved l/3rd of fhe suit land ia their ['qi^'^fy, iXl-HC;22 -s^^nqRpi, -s^r're/'f^TOy ® sn^i^i ik-U'h SfSw iyiN?'gft?i VWvfl «)H|ch •^ 200 lct'btta' sn^i wnwaltd shaie. Leamed c*irst appe|l gave his sharc to'S'jnderi^ 0,08 hectarc of suit land over 0,04 hectare ofsiuf lafad The conclusion arriv^ based on CT'idence avafl docuinentaiy evidence is aj ComHiissioner was also ai investigation found fhat possession over fhe siut la^ of land was fouud iuposs< land was fouud in possessi of evidence. by both fhe] misreadine of evidence orl opinion fhat no substantial! Therefore, the appeal is Ifefble accoidiagty dismissed. ^rfCTiiN tIIlRTt' ^ ftIZt ifatdK ^sipgHsn^r ate. Court aJso accepted that Shyamdev d and Szinderlal is in possession over yhereas DtiaraTnsip.gh is in posse.ssion d at by bofh the Courts below on fact is ble ou iccoid, Nof onty oral and yaflable, biit on the oider of fhe Coyrt, ipoiated to investigate, who after local iunde'rlal and Dharam Singh are ia. [id bearing Khasra No.71. 0.08 hectare 1'ssion of Sunderlal and 0,04 hectare of ]on of Dharam Singh. The apprcciation Coiirts below is not the rcsult of mis-application of law. I am of the IqtTestion oflaw involves in this appeal. |ble to be :disinissed su^gpiarily and is Sdf- V.K.Shrivastava Judge