<^' ^!'^ ^>^ ^'"' IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SecondAppealNo./^/^ 72010 §11 APj*ELLANT ~T >./^ Prabhu Vishwakarma S/o Aliyar Vishwakarma aged about 43 years, R/o Sonpurkala, Thana & Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) (PLAINTIFF) RB^PONDENTS 7~ VERSUS 1) 21 ^ /'>' 5) / 6) Smt. Minta Vishwakarma w/o Prabhu Vishwakarma aged about 35 years, R/o Sonpurkala, Thana & Tahhsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Dharam @ Shani s/o Ranu Vishwakarma aged about 40 years, R/o Village Rajhara, Palamu (Jharkhan) Present Address Sonpurkala, Thana & Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Chinta Vishwakarma W/o Dharam Vishwakarma, aged about 38 years, R/o Village Rajhara, Palamu (Jharkhan) Present Address Sonpurkala, Thana & Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Krishna Vishwakarma S/o Late Shivnath Vishwakarma, aged about 45 years, R/o Sonpurkala, Thana 85 Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) Devpati Vishwakarma wd/o Late Shivnath Vishwakarma, aged about 60 years, R/o Sonpurkala, Thana & Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Ambikapur District Surguja (C G.) (DEFENDANTS) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE C.P.C. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 149/2010 A^PELLANT Prabhu Vishwakarma ^ Versus RESPONDENTS Smt. Minta Vishwakarma and others SB:- HON»BLESHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT :- Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Vinod Takem, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (13-1-2011) 1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5-2-2010 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge (FTC), Ambikapur distt. Sarguja in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2009. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff is husband of the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property to record his name in place of nanie of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records and to restrain the defendant No. 1 from residing in the suit house and also to restrain other defendants from entering into the suit house inter alia on the ground that he purchased the suit land benami in the name of his wife defendant No. 1. 3. The defendants by filing joint written statement denied plaintiffs claim and hav^ stated that the defendant No. 1 herself purchased the suit land from her Stridhan, money received during marriage. It was further stated that the defendant No. 1 is earning Rs. 1,000/- per month as assistant teacher in Rajiv Gandhi Shishu Kendra, Asola since 1996 and Rs. 400/- per month by tuition and thus has constructed the suit house from her own income. Learned trial Court after considering the pleading of the parties and evidence led thereupon dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed. 8. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend, both the courts below have erred in rejecting plaintiffs case inasmuch as the defendant No. 1 was not having any earning at the time of purchase, whereas the plaintiff was the only competent person to fund the above purchase. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence led and judgment and decree of both the courts below. Plaintiff did not adduce any documentary evidence or cogent or clinching oral evidence showing above purchase by him benami in the name of his wife, on the contrary, in para 21 of his statement he has admitted that Minta i.e. his wife is working as assistant teacher in Rajiv Gandhi Shishu Kendra, Asola since 1996. The finding which is under assail is essentially a finding of fact. The appellant's counsel also failed to point out any circumstances showing perversity, illegality or absurdity in the above concurrent finding arrived at by both the courts below. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua- non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal at admission stage. In view of above, since no substantial question arises for determination of the case, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge '^^