~^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURf C.G.} SECONDAPPEAL N0. l^— OF 2006 1@ APPELLANT: ^LAINTIFF RESPONDENTS ^DEFENDANTS ..."°:° (?<^° y<^"" ^' ^^^ -^y' ^*^ ^A /^^ /^)^y <^ Bitawan Bai, Wife of Kumaru Sahu, aged about 42 years, Resident of Mourikala, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS y. Firanta Son of Suklal Sahu,aged about 60 years; 2; Leela, D/o Laltu Sahu, gged about 50 years; > Prahlad Son of Bachchu Kewat, aged about 50 years; All Resident of Village Mourikala, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). 4. Tahsildar, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). / / -5. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ^' ' . SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 Valuation of Appeal Court f^e affixed A^ Rs.2000/- rT Rs. 200/- ^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILASPUR Becosd Appeai No. 172 of 2006 Bitawaa Bai Vs. Fii'ajita aiid ofhers Appeasrasaee: Shri P,P, Saliu, , counsel for tlie appellant. SuniS Kumay Sina, J. ORALORDER (28.6.2006) Heard 011 admission. (2| This is flie plamttfFs second appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, who lost ui bofh flie coiirts. (3| This appeal arises out of jiidgment aiid decree dated 16.1.2006 passed m CivU Appeal No.l73-A/2004 by the Addl. Distiict Juclge, Dhamtari, Distt, Raipur (C.G) aiismg out of judgment aiid decree passed in. Civil Suit No.242~A/1998 by the 2nd Civilj'udge, Class-I , Dhamtari. The brief facte are that tlie plamtiff filecl a suit for cleclaration of lier tifle aiicl peniiaaent iiijunction. She clatmed tlie reliefs ui fhe followiiig maiiner: "3T/ ^ f^ N^ft ^r ^f0;t0344 ^sTT 1.214 te^ ^ f^RT TTFT ^i^chdt 'qS^t ^07R) 10/25 ^TOf^Oito ^ ^O ^^ ^T fNt^ ^m 1984 ^ Pl^it^l^; ^ ^rpft^fcteT^r i ®r/^ f^ ito^t ^pfs' ^ f^^r ^TI^ f^rten- vfT^t tR: Rcil^ ^ IR cT[{t?ft ^ ^irtoq ^ ¥[to^ ^?iT ^RTT ^ W yf?ic|l(f!^iui'J ^t "^3^T ^" ^t f?Rto tor^icr ! ^/ ^r? f^ ^nf^fl' ^r y^iqi^^i'u^ •^ ^TR-SPT ^ 3R" ^^I ^Jt 3Ki^T ^RI W^ Rdl41 ^Fr ^t ^^ ^nf^r ^r ^t ^IT c^ i" ^3' '2. The plaiiitifFs claioi is that she was holcliiig the possession of the la-iid siiice 1981 and accoidiiig to fhe provisions of MP^ Xe Iffge ^2 ^Ta 5' a Pafta should have beeu granted ui her favotir aiicl siace the sanie has not been done, she be declared the owner of tlie propeil}7 under tlie said provisions of law, The triaJ Gozirt dismissed the siiit of the plaiatiff holcliiig tliat flie plaiiitiif was not ui actual possession of the laad suice flie yeai' 1981 as accordiag to the eyidence, she was only ui possession sixice 1990-91 to 1998-99. Agaiiist tlie aforesaid judgment & decree passed by tlie trial Court tlie plaiiitiff filed aii appeal before tlie lower appellate Court, The lower appeUate Court took fhe sioiilar view aiid dismissed the appeal filed by the plauitiff by confii'muig the judgnient aiid decree of the trial Court. It is agaiiist fliis judgment ajid decree passed by tlie appeUate court, flie plaiiitiff has prefeiTed tliis secoud appeal. (T| Referring to the provisions ofsection 3(1) ofthe said Act, leanied counsel for the appeUaiit argues tliat Bhoofniszuami rights have already been confeiTed to tlie plajiitiff as per the said provisions ofthis Act ajid a declaration to this effect should have been made by the court below, I ajii not mcliiied to accept tliis argument Sub-section (1) of section 3 of tlie aforesaid Act provides that all uiioccupied laiid iii a village iii possession of aii agricultural labourer on the 2nd October 1984 shaU, noti¥itlistaiidiiig aiiytliiiig contaiiied ui tlie Code, or the niles made thereunder shall be held by such persoii as from tlie said date ni Bhoomiszumni rights aiid he shail be a Bhoomisiuami of tlie said laiid for aU purposes of ftie Code aiiy other enactment for the time beiag iii force. This is subject to certaiii provisos which ai'e refeiTed to zinder tlie said section^ Accordiiig to tliis section, a persou mast be m possession of tiie laad 011 2nd of October 1984 aud he or she ^SS^^^'W" ^^t^ Q-G. s must be agricultural labourer or landless person subject to certaio. coiiclitions as are defiiied under sub-section (2) ofsec.7. lu the present case, tiie tiial Court, as well as the lo^ver appellate Court has coucurrently recorded faidiiigs that tlie plaiutiff was not io. possessioii of tlie dispzited laad except for the period refeiTed to above. There is no niiirmity ui tiie coucuiTent fuidings recorded by tlie two courts below aiid ou tiie basis of tliese fuidmgs tlie courts below have ri-ghtly clismissed tlie suit of the plaiiitiff wifli reference to fhe law, referred to above, decliiiuig her to be declai'ed as the owuer of the suit propei-h^ There is no merit ui the seconcl appeal. The saBie is dismissed at the motion stage itsetC Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Rao