•u^/'^& G' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR '^»'%^ ^MSK S.A.NO. r> /2004 APP@,LANT' PLAINTIFF BHUNESHWAR RAM, S/0. GOPAL ,RAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, ...r'^VRESIDENT OF VILLAGE t; -til ^•"^i.^-' PIPARKHAR> P-s- LAKHANPUR, •6^.<''r,f^G'''~ TAH- AMBIKAPUR, DISTT. '••• ^;. ••••"'' SURGUJA (C.G.) ^p'^'3"^" >-^^^-~''~ %^£'-^ i^~ VERSUS ;lu ;';>ciiai RESPQNDENTS DEFENDANTS / 1. PENDRA. SON OF SHRI PREMSAI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIPERKHAR, THANA LAKHANPUR, TAH. AMBIKAPUR, DISTT,. DURG 2. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SURGUJA (C.G.) ^-•" SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C. Valuation of suit Before the learned Court. Rs.600/- i» •iSd -"••ssa 'v^- \":)*"' ^~li»l^rt?i iS;t rs < versus iiai !;M8 11 Shri Sushi! Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondi No.2. Second Appea! under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civii Procedurs •s ^U'IUl Heard leamed counsei forthe appe!lant cn admission. 2. Plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and permanent irijunction has J^ dismissed by It was the case of the piaintiff t'nat the property described in Schedule A of the plaint bearin >ra No. 155/2 area 0.668 hectare was purchased about 30 years by his father Gopal and defendant No.l's father Premsai jointly the joint family income and they were enjoying % share each of >aid property by dividing amongst them, however, after death of sa! and Premsai, deferx^ant No.1 became greedy and objected to the possesslon of the plaintiff over the suit land, thersfore, the present suit (Civil Suit No.79-A/94) has been preferred. 3- . Defendant Mo.1 "denied the plaint averments and stated Shat the iuit land was purchased by his father Premsai from his own funds as i<a=^i:Afc.tasattss-• • ...f ;;!!n'a s^^-^ /^;;w;'. I.Si^^ WWK 'la 2- there was already a partition behveen Gopal and Premsai years back. According to defendant No.1, the suit property is the se!f- acquired property of his father Premsai and that Gopa! and Premsa had never partitioned the suit property and taken % share each. it was the specific of defendanS No.1 that his father Premsai hac purchased the suit land in auction on payment of Rs.15/- fo She Government and as such the suit property cannot be a joint family trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the plainti IW. •i-ss failed to prove that the suit property was purchased from the joint farnily income. !t has ateo been found that the piaintiff has not been de 5f D!^ No. 155/2. The trial Court found that the agreemenf dated 20-7-19E 57 :x. P-1) relied by the piaintiff is not a credibie piece of evidence, firstly icause of some interpoiation in the .document adding Khasra No.155/2 and secona'ly the docum Devprasad, whereas from the evidencs no person by the name Devprasad ir document Ex. P-1 was found to be ime of ', i{ is established that there ii the entire family. Thus, th( susplcious and not "aving any evidentiary vaiue by the tria! Court. 5. The first appeilate Court the trial Court and has concluded thi nea me findinas recor the suit !and was self-acquired •property of Pi-ernsai and the piaintiff has-no right, title or interest in the K |Ji ^ ,? n 6. The substantial questions of ta'w propcsed by the appellant in the memo of appeal are not substantial and they are not arising for determination of lis between the parties. The questions proposed are 7. It is the settled iegai positi property, that the suit property is a self-acquii findina of fact. ', is a pure n istantial question of iaw arisjng in this for determination, the second appea! fails and is hereby dismissed af [ne aamission siage Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 118 'l;; .li!iK v^^^^'^.vsm'