"-^- 'l?"^ Ao&eiSant Defendant Respondent PSasntiff HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BJLASPUR Second AppeaJ No.545 of 2006 Dudhnath, aged about 32 years, S/o late Brujmohan Ahir, R/o VISSage Parla, Tahsij-Kstghora, District Korba (C.G.) Versus Ganeshiya Bai aged 28 years, W/o Shri Gorelaj, R/o ViStage-ParJa, TahslJ-Katghora, Distrtet-Kprba (Second Appeai under Section 100 ofthe CPC) Present:- Mr.Uttam Pandey, counsel forthe appelSant. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORAL ORDER (8-19-2018) 1. By this appeai, the appeiSant has chaltenged the iegailty and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed by the District Judge, Korba, in Civjl Appeal No.43A/'2004, affirmjng the dismissai of suit by the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2004 passed by the Civii Jude Class-i, Katghora, in Civii Suit no.7A/98. 2. As per nutsheii case of the parties, originally land v^as he!d by Arjun Lal, brother of the pressnt appeSlant and husband of the respondent, but as per pleading ofthe appellant, during !ife time of Arjun Lai and four months prior to his death, Ganeshlya Bai remamed with Goreiaf. After death of Arjun Lat, property was succeeded by his sole sumving successor minor Sundar Kaii who also died after five to six years of death of Arjun Lal. As per ctaim of the appellant, after death of Sundar Kaii he was only heir of Sundar Kaii. He has succeeded the propsrty. 3. Suit was originaSiy fiied by the respondent for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profit whlch was decreed. Same was chailenged before the lower appellate Court and ttie iower appeiiate Court has affirmed the judgment and decres of the triai Court. "%. 1 i" -^- ! have heard iearned counsei for the appetisnt, perused the judgment and decree jmpugned, judgment and decree of the triai Court and records of the Courts beiow. As per admitted facts, the property was originalSy owned by Arjun Lai and after death of Arjun Lal, property teft by Arjun LaS was vested upon hls daughter Sundar Kaii who aSso disd and after death of Sunciar Kati her mother Ganeshiya Bai wiii succeed the property ieft by Sundar Kaii. Considering the iega! positson,! do not find any substantlai questlon of iaw for the dedsion of the appeai or any interest of the appeilant over the property Seft by Arjun Lal. ConsequentSy, the appeal being wlthout substance is iiable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the motion stage stseif. No order as to costs. — Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^