i, -tfy • f g- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Plaintiff) Second Appeal No.327 of 2010 Shiv Kumar son of Late Mahadeo Sharma, aged about 48 years, R/o village Gharghoda, P.S. & Tahsil Gharghoda Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). {Second appeal under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure} RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, counsel for the appellant. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. Single Bench:J^lpn'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORALJUDGMENT (28-7-2011) 1. By this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 31-7- 2010 passed by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No.22A/2010 affirming the judgment & decree of dismissal of civil suit for declaration of title, possession and declaration that the gift deed is not binding upon the appellant herein, videjudgment & decree dated 13-1-2007 passed by he Civil Judge Class-11, Gharghoda in Civil Suit No.12A/2003. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments & decrees and records of the Courts below. 3. As per the plaint allegation, father of the appellant Mahadeo Sharma had gifted the agricultural land bearing Patwari Halka No.24, Khasra Np.489/1 area 2.10 acres situate at Village Gharghoda to Government Higher Secondary School, Gharghoda for the purpose of agricultural practical training on 16-11-72 vide registered gift deed with a condition that if the land is not used for agricultural practical training then the donor ^ '^ —-;L"-iS^-- Soma ^^ will be entitled to take back the land, inter alia, the gift was But after receiving the property, respondent No.2 has not used the aforesaid land for agricultural practical training and, therefore, the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for taking back the land. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge Class-11 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that the respondents are not using the land in accordance with the condition mentioned in the gift deed. Judgment & decreeof the trial Court was challenged before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the trial Court. 4. Undisputed facts of the case reveal that the land in question has not been gifted by father of the appellant to the aforesaid institution for educational purpose i.e. for practical training relating to the subject of agriculture. The defendants have not used the land for residential or other purposes, they have not constructed building over the land for some practical laboratory. As per evidence of the defendants, they are not using the land regularly for the aforesaid purpose, but they are using the land for providing practical training relating to the subject of agriculture. Virtually, the condition of gift was for imparting education especially relating to the subject of agriculture and practical training. The defendants have not used the land for other than the aforesaid purpose. Although they are not regularly utilizing the land for the aforesaid purpose, but substantially, they are using the land for imparting education and training. 5. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit and the appeal. While dismissing the suit and the appeal, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irr.egularity. Consequently, 1 do not find any substance in the appeal, the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge