(39 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR s.A. No. 333 OF 2003 APPELLANTS 1. Dalpati S/o Bhaira @ Budru, 41 years. DEFENDANTS Smt. Prem Bati Wd/ o late Sampat. 3. Saita @ Santo Bai D/o late Sampat, 14 years. 4. ‘ Rainu S/o late Sampat, 8 years. 5. Smt. Mukta Bai Wd/ o late Sampat. 6 Dasuda S/o late Sampat, 2 years. App. No. 3, 4 85 6 through : Guardian app. No. 1 Dalpati S/o Bhaira. Mitaki Bai Wd/ o Dularu, 45 years. Prabhuram S/o Dularu, 8O years. All r/o Vill. Dongariguda, Teh. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. a. Smt. Parvati @ Paro W/ 0 Late Sukalu, PLAINTIFFS 1. b. Devlnath S/o late Sukalu, Both R/o Village Kurandi, Tahsil t Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh through: District ~ Magistrate Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. SECOND APPEAL U/s 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. (s3 :H6n‘’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present— Shrl Prafull Bharat, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.a 85 Lb. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent No. 2. ORAL- JUDGEMENT (Passed on 06/09/2010) l. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure . Code appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22/2/2003 passed by First Additional $ District Judge Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal NO. 47-A/2001 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7/8/2001 passed by Second Civil Judge Class —2, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit NO. Jagdalpur has d favour of the r Shri Prafull Bharat, Khetrapal, A Shri Rakesh heard‘ Judgme below perused. As per plea Gur 1954-1955 in the reve pugned Lower appell dismissed the appeal. and decree has Learned appellants have faile admission o udge Class —2, rat1on and possessmn m 15—A/98 whereby Second Cw11 J ecreed the sult for decl espondent Sukalu since deceased. Advocate for the appehants and S dvocate for the respondent No. La Jha, Dy. CnA. for the State/respon hri Goutam 8a lib and dent No. 2 are nt and decree impugned and records of both ding of the parties, originally property after some time probab name of Bhaira father of appellant No. l nue record. On the basis of revenue recor declaration and possesSlon of land was med by deceased. After lear in favour '1 mother of Sukalu but prov1d1ng an opportunity of hearing to the pa ecree was challenged nt a and decree nt Court while afiirming the judgment ned Second Civii Judge Class -2, Jagdalpur dec of the Sukalu. Judgment and d before the lower Appellate Court vide judgme counsel for the appellants submits d to file any docume f respondent witness S Bha1ra was also mutated On the basis of suc present other hand learned cou 6. On the b. and State/ res 'and 1. that although ntary evidence but ukalu reveals that name of h mutation the second appeal is time barred nsel for the respondent pondent No. 2 opposed the appeal. the Courts was held by ly in the year was mutated d, suit for Sukalu since rties reed the suit N0. 1. a. 7. Present appsllants had not filed any documentary evidence to show the land was originally held by Budhru father of Bhaira and he had claimed property as heir. He has also not filed any documents to show that his father had acquired title on the aforesaid property interalia land is recorded in the name of Guri since 27—28 years. In absence of any prove of acquisition of title by Bhaira or present appellants, Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit in favour of Sukalu since deceased. 8. On close scrutiny of the record, I do not find any substantial queStion of law involved in the present second appeal for decision. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9. Parties shall bear their own costs. 10. Advocate fee as per schedule. No order as to costs. ‘ Sd/_ “mm 1X T. P. Shanna .i Judge 5"” ”