k (W/c?) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHHATTISGARH SECOND APPEAL No.5V? OF 2005 Jeera Bai W/o Antram (Since deceased) through Legal Representatives; Smt. Basant patel, Wd/o Kartik Ram Smt. Ghana Bai patel, . W/o Bhojram Nageshwar S/o Antram patel Sushila D/o Kedar Patel NageshwaFrS/o Antram pmw.‘ , Gyaneshwar, S/o Antram pate! ’ Prayag Narayan, S/o Antram patel Urmila Bai, D/o Antram Patel Santoshi Bai D/o Antram Patel (AH R/o Baloda Bazar, civil Lines, Tahsil — Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur Versus Appellant Defendants Respondent i , Ptaintiff 1V, Shyam, S/o Dhel / Singh Satnami, age‘d abOut 51 years, Cultivator, R/o Baloda Bazar, Tahsil-Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Respondent D’efendant No. 2 / ,, State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1v0/0/OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI—HC—22 WW,WW,W mm 5‘, am. 567 QCWE Wm H1 200 m O Ku. Shaxmila Singhai, Counsel for the appellants. Heard on admission. Order paseed as folk WS: ORDER 1; 72006 This is the defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the‘Code‘oi Civil Procedure. It an'ses out of the ted 3/9/2005 passed by the 15‘ Baloda Bazar, District - Raipur judgment and decree da Additional District Judge, (C.G.). The brief facts are t the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction an also for damages on account of interference being made owned by him. The owners of the suit land w and Smt. Bai, who were acquired by them. After bV manv successors alo between them, this portio of the plaintiff and he thereof since long ba contentions of the plai entire area ofthe suit Ia from its joint owners, named above, through a registered sale— Manna) y the defendants on the suit land allegations are that the original re Smt. Ram Bai, Smt. Bodhni Bai real sisters. The land was jointly m, the land was jointly succeeded th the plaintiff and on a partition of suit land was received in share holding the exclusive possession The defendants denied the It was pleaded by them that the was purchased by Smt. Jeera Bai ' t p n i c. n ' n a e e i mm mm WWW WW&'1‘§Q‘T®QR WW %a1f$m3néw 12.07.2006 XI—HC-22 33W,Wl§,W Wm w <l /9<Mop5é7 1H LpfoS 200 W mm mm mmm / WW§WW _g , %a%na1%w deed dated 20/ 1/ 1977. T e possession was also delivered to her and in this manne‘,’ Smt. Jeera Bai, the original defendant No. 1, who died uring the pendency of the suit and substituted by the Legal R presentatives became owner of this property; Therefore, a cree for permanent injunction cannot be passed in favou of the plaintiff. The Trial Court f amed various issues and after recording evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that a’qu .stion of title is involved in the suit and unless, a suit regard' g declaration about the sale-deed is not filed by the iff, the plaintid' cannot claim permanent injunction. owever, a positive finding was recorded by the Trial Con that in fact, the plaintiff is holding the possession of the suiv land and the defendants or Smt. Jeera Bai were never put in possession of the suit property. Against the afore judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the plai filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The er Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the uit for permanent injunction. It appears that the Appellat Court has disposed of 5 dinerent appeals’filed by 5 differe t plaintin‘siby ’a common judgment and decree dated 3/9/ 20 5 because almost similar facts in issue were decided in 5 iEerent Civil Suits against which these appeals were decid The Appellate Court decreed the suit on the. ground that en the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plain was in possession of the disputed tint) e p ‘ t H s ' n ' w ‘ e . h mA XI—HC-22 mm WWW WW§WW mm &;3?%wan%xr land, a dtcree for permanent injunction should haV€ bean f“ passed in favour of the plaintiff, which the Trial Court has not done. It is against this judgment and decree passed by the appellants/defendants have the Lower Appellate Co filed this Second Appeal. Learned counsel f point. Her contention possession is a perverse finding and the same cannot be sustained in the eve of ‘l . She further submits that if the plaintiff will not be hel to be in'possession of the suit property, a decree for pe the appellants raises only one that the finding in relation to nent injunction cannot be passed. I have gone through the records of the Courts below and have also perused the evid nce led by the parties. It has come in the e idence of witnesses that the entire area of suit land was su ceeded in joint possession by the plaintiff and other succe ‘sors and thereafter, there was a ich‘, this particular portion of the plaintiif in the said partition and the plaintiff is holding exclusive possession of the suit property since the said da1e. On appreciation, the Trial Court found that Late Smt. Jeera Bai or any of the present appellants Were never put in possession of the suit property and the plea raised by them regarding receiving of possession in lieu of the sale has been negatived. A positive hnding in relation to possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has been recorded by the Trial W) partition in the family, in suit land was received bV u o i‘ , a a h e XI—HC-22 W. WW, WW,W Wm Hi 200 mm mm WW WW§mW §m§wanézr Court'on the basis of evide also coniirmad th6 above f permanent injunction on t' in possession of the suit 1a Since the finding of the same has been concm below and further since, t' the aforesaid findings reco not inclined to admit this r: A perusal of section scope and exercise of jnr. second appeal u/s 100 is of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal or additional substantial que stage after recording reasons for the same. clear that the existence of qua non for the exercise provisions of section 100 CPC. 762 — Thiagaraian and B.Koil and others). As to which would ( law, it has been observ: Santosh Hazari -—vs~ Purushottam Tlwari {deceasegi 13y L.Rs. {2001) 3 SCC 179 that “a no two opinions may be a substantial question of law. To be “substantial” a question of 'P ace on record. The Appellate Court nding and has decreed the suit for 1is basis only that the plaintiff was 1d. possession is a nnding of fact and ‘rently recorded by the two Courts 1ere appears to- be no perversity in tiled by the two Courts below, I am .ppeal for hearing. 100 C.P.C. makes it clear that the sdiction by the High Court in the limited to the substantial question stions of law framed at the later This makes it substantial question of law is sine of jurisdiction under the amended (Please see (2004) Val. V SCC others —vs~ Venuqonala Swarm: :onstitute a substantial question of :d. by the Apex Court in case of point of law which admits of proposition of law but cannot be a “£9 No 5é7 200g _4,‘