Appellants PSaintifFs Defendants Second Appeal No.471/2007 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ditip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Kanhaiya, aged about 50 years, son of Lafe Shri Lakhan Satnami; 2. &. 5. J'eevan, aged about 35 years, Son of Late Shri Lakhan Satnami; Both are resldent of Viilage Ghathoii, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Kamla B&i, aged about 52 years, D/o Late ihri Lakhan Sainami, Wife of Shri Pitsmber Satnami, Resident of Vlltage Koyiari, Tahsi! Lorml, Dlstrict Bsiaspur (C.G.) Vijsn Bai, aged about 32 years, D/o Late Shri Lakhan Safnami, Vtfife of Shri Sant Saritnam!, Ressdent of Viltaas Amlideeh, Tahsii Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Resham Bai, sgsd about 30 years, D/o Late Shri Lakhan Satnarni, Wife of Shri Dujram Satnami, , R/o Village Nanapuri, Tahsil Pandariya, Distr'sct Kawardha (C.G.) Khel Baj, aged about 27 years, D/o Late Shri Lakhan Salnami, Wife of Shri Ganesh Satnami, Resident of Viilage Bhurka, Tahs,'! Lormi, Dfetrict Bli'ass fr- fi \ \\^. l^; .^ Duiari Bai, aged aoout 65 years, Wife of Shr; Ved Prasad Pandey, Resident of Viiisge Ghutur Kundi, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kawa'-dha (C-G.) Gna'ntias, aged aOout 57 yeare, son or Shri Sukharu; Laindas, aged aboui 42 years. Son of Shri Lakharu: Kanhasya, aged about 37 years, Son of Shri Lakhan; The Resposdent No.2 to 4 are resident of Villaae Ghathoil, Tahssl Lormi,^ . District Biiaspur(C.G.) '/ .'. Sfate of ChhaKisgarh, Through: The Coiiector, Bilaspur (C.G.) Apgeai under Section 100 of the Code of Civii lr^^^Ht?rffl. il i ^*i.,r1b*i| 1 Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsei for the appeiiants. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05th November, 2007^ Meard on admission. (2) The appeiiants are being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30-08-2007 passed by the Addltionai District Judge, iViungeli, District SHaspur in Civil Appeai No.54-A/2005 wherebv the iudament and decrse dated OS-11-2005 passed by the Civii Judgs Ciass S, Mungeii in Civli Suit No.7-A/2002,suitwas dismissed. was affirmed. (3) During the courss of srguments, iearned counsel for the appsiiants has not bsen abie to point out any ground for interference with ths judgment ^•1 T^ t^ ^^^ .*^\ y^. ^". i"^ ^* ~^ ^ ^.-S ^ 1/-*(. .»'%L;>-<1, ti"L^ y^ •^ft .^i •: r: v'^+i'^ U."r<:J^^l~Hj OQGF8S PS336Q 0V DOXH In0 i^OUHS OBiQW. (4) in this view of ths matter as a'so the concurrent finding recorded by both ths Courts beiow against tEie appeilants/piaintiffs, no substantlal question of iaw arises for determination in this appeai which is accordingiy ^ i £?'y^llf^/^ ^l /^'A ^*^/'^S ^^^r^i^^ /^^ ^ f<f^ ?-'^^ i ^1 rF^ ; ;i5i''i"HS5i»SU 21 IRS SlcSQS CT SQiI'lb^SOH. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge