HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. S.A. No. 269 of 2004 ’ Second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC Present: Shri A. K. Prasad counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K. Shukla‘ ’counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri PR. Patankar, PL forthe State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 01 .10;2008) Heard on admission as also on the cross—objection filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. (2) The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and' decree dated 11.03.2004 passed in civil appeal No.15-A/2003 by the 2nd Additional District Judge (FTC) Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2003 passed in civil suit No.154-A/2002 by the 2‘” Additional Civil Judge, Class—ll, Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) to the extent that possession of 0.02 RA out of 0.47 hectares of land pertaining to Khasra No.348 situated at Village Dwarikanagar, Tahsil Surajpurk DisttuSarguja (henceforth ‘the suit Iand’) be delivered to the respondenvplaw/rv No.1 after demolition of superstructure thereon. Appellant : Madan, S/o Amrit Cherwa, aged Defendant No.1 about 55 years, R/o Village Dwarikanagar, Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Versus Respondents 1‘ Fulbasiya, Wd/o Nanki Cherwa, aged about 65 years, R/o Viiiage Dwarikanagar, P.S. & Tehsil Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Plaintiff 2. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Surguja, ,Ambikapur (CG) Proforma Defendant No.2 (3) The appellant/defendant had taken the piea that being in possession of the suit land for 4O years, he had perfected title by adverse possession over the suit land. (4,) Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and after perusing the record, l am of the considered opinion that the appellantldefendant has miserably failed to prove adverse possession over the suit land. Both the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of evidence oral as well as documentary, passed a decree for possession of the above mentioned land after demolition of the house situated thereon. (5) No substantial question of law arises for determination of thi appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. 5d!- AHEB D mLIY RAOS Judge ESHMUKH Priya s