IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH SECOND APPEAL N0.. (U OF20SX- s'"9'e B8nc!l Appellant Plaintiff Respondents JSefedants 1j 'c11 Raidhar S/o Sonadhar aged about 48 years, R/o Village Kinjoli, Tahsil - Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1^ (a) Domai, Wd/o Late Guru aged 50 Years (l?) Dhanpati, S/o Late Guru ^'28Years ^(c) Dumardhar, S/o Late Guru ^ aged about 22 years (All R/o Village - Kakodi, Semra Tahsil - Kotpad, Distt. Koraput (Orissa) 2. ^ 3. ^" 4. ^" 5. 6. Mangal S/o Jagannath, aged about 70 years, Caste ~ Bhatra, R/o Village - Kinjoli Tahsil - Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector, Distt. Bastar, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) Mu. Nanday, S/o Firangi, Caste - Bhatra, aged about 61 years, R/o Village - Kinjoli Tahsil—Jagdalpur,Distt Bastar (Chhattisgarh) Motiram, S/o Mohan, Bhatra, aged about 48 years, Shreeram, S/o Mohan Bhatra, aged about 48 years, (Sl. No. 5 & 6 R/o Village - Kokdi, Semra, Tehsil -- Kotpad, Distt. Kotpad, Distt. Koraput (Orissa) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.1908 w- r •^- ^A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR S.ANo. 186 of 2006 Raidhar Vs. Domai & oth^rs Ku. Sharmila Singhai, counsel for fhie appeHant WIDBR (28.6.2006) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. (1) This is the plaiatiGPs second appeal filed under Section 100 ofC.P.C.. The plaintifflost inboth the Courts. (2) This appeal has been dirccted agaiast fhe iaipugned judginent and decrce dated 27,1.2006 passed in CivU Appeal No. 18-A/2005 by IVth Additional District Judge (FTC), Bastar, Jaugdalpur Chhattisgarh, arisiag out of Judgment aad decree dated 8.11,2004 passed ia CivU Suit No. 75-A/98 by 1st CivU Judge, Class-II, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, (3) The brief facts are that fhe plamtiff filed a suit for declaration of title aad also for declaration fhat the order passed by fhe Revenue Court on 28,7.93 is nuU and voM, He also prayed for decree of confinaation of possession, The plamt aUegations are fhat fhe siiit laads were fhe setf acquired property of Shn Arjun, who was son of one Dudi. It is pleaded that Arjun was haviag two chlldren namely Jamna Bai aad Kuldhar. On account of deafh of Kuldhar, Arjuii has adopted Sonadhar (fafher of fhe plaiatifi) as his ~z- <7f^ '-\ "l^ son aad he succeeded the property of schedule -A of fhe plamt m his successoxy rights aad after fhe death of Sonadhar, the plaiatiff who is son of Sonadhar succeeded the said property, The plamtiff clauns the ownership on the basis of successoiy right in fhe said mamier in Une of succession ofdeceased Arjun. This aUegation was denied by fhe defendants, They pleaded fhat the suit property was not setf acquired property of Arjun, They further pleaded fhat Sonadhar was not adopted by Arjun aad he was not fhe adopted son, fhercfore, question of succeediiig fhe property of Aqun by the plaintiff, who is son of Sonadhar, does not anse. (4) The trial Court framed various issues ia fhis case and m aaswer to issue No. 3, it was held that tfie suit property was ; fhe selfacqmred properly pB%jun. However, itwas "y^ /'^- further held fhat fhe plamitiff col&ld notf^stablish fhat his ^ ^'f:';-^ .jj^ father namely Sonadhar was ^B^^^ adoption by Arjun aad on fhis ground, fhe trial Court dismissed fhe suit. Agamst fhe aforesaid judgnient aad decree passed by fhe trial Court, fhe plamtiff filed aii appeal beforc the lower appeUate Court. The lower appeUate Court also took the same view and confirmed fhe judgment and decree passed by the trfcal Court, It is against fhe said judgraent and decree passed by fhe Lower AppeUate Court, fhe plamtiff has fUed this second appeal under Section 100 ofC.P.C (5) After goiag through fhe judgHLent of 2 Courts below and further after going through the evidence of various witaesses recorded in this case, it is apparent fhat the plaiatiff could not estabUsh fhat his father namely Sonadhar was adopted son of Arjun as fhere appears to be no sufficient evidence of vaMd adoption of Sonadhar by Arjun ia fhis case. In the opinion of fhis Court, the trial Court has r^ghtly held that fhe plaiatfcff faUed to prove a ^.3 ^' valid adoptiou of his father by Arjun, There is no perversity in. the concurrent fiadiiigs recorded by 2 Courts below. (6) In ftie matter of Rooo iSttnoh (decu^ throwah L^Rs, - ys- Retm Sinah fdeaeU throwih L.Rs^ reswrted in f2000) 3 SCC pfi.708, it has been laid down by fhe Apex Court fhat <eit has to be reiterated fhat under Section 100 C,P,Q, the jurisdiction of fhe High Court to entertam a second appeal is confined only to such appeals which involve fhe substantial question of law omi it does not confer any jurisdiction on the High Court to iaterfere wifh the pure questions of fact whUe exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C." (7) It was agaia held by fhe Apex Court ia fhe matter of Thicweirctian emd athers -Vs' Sri Venuaapaletswemd B. Koil and othcrs, reiwrted in f2004t 5 SCC tN»*76J2 that "fhe existence of a substantial question of law is the siae qua non for the exercise ofjurisdiction under tiie acaended provision ofSection 100 C,P.C. As to what would amount to substantial question of law has been dealt ia the matter of Santosh Hcoiari -Vs' Purushottam. Tlwarl (2001) 3 SCC 179 aud it has been held that "a point of law which admits of no two opiaions niay be a proposition of law but cannot be a substaatial question of law. To be "substaatiaT a question of law niust be debatable, not prcviously settied by law of fhe land or biadiag prccedent, aad inust have a niaterial bearing on fhe decision of fhe case, if answered either way, ia so far as fhe rights of fhe parties before it are concemed. To be a question of law involved m fhe case fhere must be first a foundation for it laid ia fhe pleadin^gs and fhe question should enierge fromi fhe sustaiaable fuidings of fhe fact ardved at by Court of facts aad it inust be necessary to decide that question of law for a just aad proper decision of -4- /VJ\ 1 ^ vatti fhe case, An entirely new point raised for fhe first tuiie before fhe High Court is not a question iavolved ia the case unless it goes to the root of matter, It wUl, fherefore, depend on fhe facts aiid circumstaaces of each case whefher a question of law is a substantial one aad iavolved m fhe case, or not; fhe paramoiiat overatl consideration beiag the need for striking a judicious balance between the iadispensable obUgation to do justice at aU stages aad impeUing necessity of avoiding prolongation ia the life of any lis,^ (8) In fhe opiaion of fhis Court, no substaatial question of law involvesin. this appeal, The appeal has no inerits. The saoie is disniissed at the xaotion st^e itself, Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge