IFC! A.TTii !!y^rf>as.5£ *^t^y*:f^"-^' s-f^. ^iiyji'G: ta?^:iil*;is. i~'iW Hon'bte Shri Diiio Raosahs :b Deshmukh. J. Shatmhan, S/o. Siya Ram Sonkar; aged about 58 years; resident of viliage - Arjun; lajsil - uongargarn; District Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Smt. Kanti Bai, wife of "unknown" [Since Deep Chand; as per Ex.P/5 and other materials vide C.S.No. 17-,A/2001, of 2nd C.J.i Rajnandgaon]; aged about 38 years. Santosh Kumar. Son of Unknovi/n [Since Deep Chand; as per Ex.P/5 and other materiais vide C.S.No. 17-AV2001, of 2nd C.J.il ynandgaon]; aged about 17 years; minor throuah Guardian mother Smt. Kanti Bai; (Both resldent of Viilage - Arjunl, Tahsil - Dongargarh; District Rajnandgaon (CG) >econd_Aopeal und_erSectiQn,100 of CodepfCivii Erocedure 1^08. Shri R.N. Jha, counsel forthe appeiiant. (Passed on 30th Juiy, 2007) Heard on admission. (2) Also heard on i.A. No.1 fortaking document on record. (3) Considered andaiiowed. Document is taken on record. (4) The appeliant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree-dated 24.2.2007 passed in clvi! appeal No.21-A/2004 by the Ist AdditionalDistrict Judge, Rajnandgaon, whereby whiie affirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Civii Judg®, C-lass-il, Rajnandgaon in civi! Suit 17-A/2001 dated 23.06.2004, the appeal was dismissed. (5) Brief facts are that fiiing of an application by the respondenydefendant No.2, minor son of the appeiianVplaintiff for grant of mainienance ied to t'ne fiiing of civii sujt No.17-A/2001 before the iind Civii Judge, Ciass-li, Rajnandgaon for deciaration t'nat Santosh Kumar was not the son of the appellanVpiaintiff. The triai Court has recorded a finding that the appeilant/plaintiff, being the father ofthe respondent/defendant No.2 Santosh Kumar was not entitled to the relief sought for. Appeai preferred against the said judgment and decree has also been dismissed. Both the Courts below have recorded finding against the appellant/plaintiff on the basis of the foiiowingfacts:- A/ Long cohabitation between the appeilant/plaintiff and the resoondent No.1 Smt Kanti Bai. $/ Documentary evidence to support such reiationship between the appellant/plaintifr and the respondentF\io.1/defendant. C/ Documentary evidence in the nature of publlc documents i.e. birth certificate and mark list showing the appeilanfplaintiff as the father of the respondent /defendant No.2 as also the date of birth of respondent/defendant No.2 being 15.1.1990 (6) Both the Courts below have, upon proper apprecsation of evidence orai as weli as documentary and upon strong preponderance of pro'oabiiity he!d that respondent'defendant No.2 is the son the appellanfplaintiff and refused to grant the reiief sought for by tbe appeilant/'plaintiff. (7) I am of the considered opinion that no substantial questioh of law arises for determination in this appeai, which is accordingiy dismissed at the staae of adm'ission. There sha!l be no order as to costs. ---•'- ^^ww^ judge, DttiP