<?A-i0 ,%.^0".',,A^ ^' .tp.y »^/ v<vft'»<''t.sv ^&s'.&••••" (1) IN THE mGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR S.A. No. C ^ /2006 S.B. «nn1& R APPELLANT/ BefendentNo.l :, Pardeshi S/0 Govind Lodhi aged about 65 years R/o village Dhumka Tahsil &District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) L. -'- RESPONDENTS/ mtifF f VERSUS : .1. Iswari S/o Sampat Lodhi / aged about 32 years R/o village Dhumka Tahsil & Distt-Rajnandgaon : 2. State ofChhatdsgarh Through collector Rajnandgaon (C. G. ) SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SII^TT («*sy^v aTTH'WCT 3^ '•'TRTRTT, WiAwiG, Rciiy^ r.3. HWMr Shtlich ,..Rfc.NO.,^J 2-00(: "^,' 200 sn^TTOnwHfer 'kl^'iil'l •qraCT 4 feiA tfSR^ ^siPaHsh^i. 20/03/2006 Shri C.R. Sahu, Counselj None for respondeat No.p.. : Shri J.N. Nande, Panel ^wyer for respondent No.2/State. Hcard ori admission aad) Rcspondent No. 1/plaintjff filed cndl suit for possessun and pennanent injunction against land. AppeUant contested fhe reeorded findiag that the suit No. 1 by registered sale deed d for the appeUaut. onM,.C.P.No. 17/2006. [fhe appeflant in respect ofthe suit |suit i"n<er crfiaon fhe ground that fhe suit land has been purchasc{i by him and he has acquired the right by adverse possession. Lcamed lower Court after due evaluation of the cvidence laad was piirchased by respondent ttcd 19/04/1976 and fhe same land was pttrchascd by the appeUajit subsequently vidte sate deed dated 19/05/1985. The suit wa hunself has pleaded that hi 19/05/1985 and froia evide^ice cstabUshcd his possession after 1985. Therefore, appellant b^ing subsequent purchaser does not acquire any tifle over fhe suit for 12 years or more thaa 12 possession and permaaent injunction, Fixst AppeBate Court 07/12/2005 passed in Civfl filed on 06/04/1994. Appellant has purchased thc suit land on pand and his possessioa was also not lyears, thcrefore, decreed fhe szut for vide judgment and decree dated Appeal N0.31-A/2005 held fhat the leamed lower Court afiter ap^reciating the evidence and document correcfly Ueld respoudent N^>. I owner of fhe suit land and also [^^f^ XI-HC-22 -SSI ^iraRPf, WliWiS. ^ strer^r f(;-ti.«*> sn^i sb4i'* ~(SWS n ^e' b raju <II*ICTI ai*iicti .ppeB^nt correcfly held that fhe appeB land for 12 years or niore It is apparent fhat fhe courts betow the title fhe appeDant over fhe suit coinpletely reste on facts aflter due appreciation of the In my opinion, the question of law, fherefore, sunainarity and is acconlingl; In fhe light of above 39/2006 foriugent hcaring add resiwndent hoMer Ifend arid ap^eal 1fae •qfn^T^T?p^rf ^ •f^^ <i^-^R ^? srfSgi; aii^l is not in posscssion over fhe suit 1, therefore, dismissed fhe appeal. No. 1 has been held by bofh offhe suit land and possession of to be unauthorized. The dispute has becn decided by lower Court d;vidence. does aot iavolve aay substential appeal is Matole to be dismissed dismissed. 4rder,M.C.P.No. 17/2006 and IA No. sfands disposed of Sd/- ^K.Shrivastava Judge [Tf^^f^