^ HIGH COURT Or CaHiAmSCrARH AT BIIASPUR 8.A. No. 91/2007 APPBLLANT8 Plaintlffs 1. 2. RB8PNDENTS Defendants VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. Defendaiit 5. Ram Charaa, aged about 55 years, S/o Meelu Sahu, Maheshi, aged about 52 years, S/o Meelu Sahu, Both R/o Raikona, P.H.No. 24, R.I. Circle Bhatgaon, Tahsfl Baloda Ba^ar Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Meelu^ aged ^>out 75 years, S/o R^hiunafh Sahu Hadcharan, aged about 45 years, S/o Meelu Sahu Ramnafh aged about 43 years, S/o Meelu Sahu, Shyaxalal, aged about 40 years S/o Meelu Sahu, AU R/o Raikona, P.H. No. 24, R.I. Cucle t^^J Bhatgaon, Tahsil Baloda Bazar Distt. Raipur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh, Through- CoUector, Raipur (C.G.). 8BCOND APPBAL UNDBR 8BCTION 100 OP THB CIVIL PROCBDURB CODB. (8B :Hon>ble Mr. T.P.SIiarmt^ J.) Present:- Shri .L.C. Das, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Sushil Dubey, G.A, for the State/re»pondentN0. 5. ORAL- ORDBR (Passedon 27/7/2009) 1. This second appeal is directed agamst the judgmeait aad decree dated 23/12/2006 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur in civU Appeal No. 05-A/2006 setting aside fhe judgment and decree dated 22/9/03 passed by the CivU Judge Class-I, Baleda Bazar, in civU Suit No. 110-A/95 wherc by learaed CivilJudge, Class -11 has decreed the suit ofpartition. /^^••^ ^•: ^ M %,^ ^^ ^-^ •/ - 'z. (9 2, The judgment aad decree is clmllenged on the groimd that lower appeUate Court has aot considered fhe fiindmg offhie trial Cowt bas^d on evidence aad thereby committed aa iUegaUly, 3. Leamed counsel for the appeUants vehemendy argued fhat ori^inally sidt was filed by the appeUants agamst fhe respondeaite No. 1 to 4 for partition aad separate possession of the property whicli was deapee but leanied Lower AppeUate Court allowed fhe appeal and dismissed fhe saif on fhe ground fhat partition have alrcady been eflFected 25 years back wifhout any mLaterial avaUable on rccord. 4, The judgment aad decree and records offhe Courts below perused. 5. PIauitfcffyappeIIaiit No. 1 Ram Cliaran himself have deposed in his evidence fhat partition has beea effected 25 years back between his brothers aad fathers same has been corroborated by plamtiffwittiess No, 2 Ghashidas on fhe basis ofstatement offhe appellaat aiid his witaesi^s court below has set aside fhe judgment and decree of the trial Court Mid has dismissed the suit after partition offhe suit pio^erty amd repartifton was not ittegaUy permissible. Lower appeUate Court has nghtty allowed fhe appeal aiid disinissed the siiit, J do not fmd aay substaittial question of law for decision of fhis appeal. Consequentiy, this secoaid appeal is liable to be dtemissed aad it is hercby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge r7c