c^ ^k ,- (•2 $.,^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH »<"ir^ / AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL No. 72010 (S.B.l APPELLANT fPLAINTIFF) .........^p^ ^»-""-^"". .\.A »:^<*<^.\-vv"^' ...•••'" : ^Budhwantin Bai, Wd/o Late y ' ' Dhanaji, aged about 60 years, Caste Satnami, village- Kurud (Kutela) Tahsil Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y DEFENDANTS l^" 2. Khorbahrin Bai, W/o Kartik Ram, aged about 65 years, Caste Satnammi, R/o Village- Giikhera, Tahsil Aarang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 /3?" cy HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SaB: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No. 22/M10 APPELLANT (Plamtnn RESPONDENTS (Defendantsl BucNwranUn Bai, Vereus KhorbahrinBal & Another Present: Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for the appellart. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate fbr the State/respondent No.2. ORALORreR (28.06^010) The suit preferred by the appeBant/plainWf for deolsffatien, pennanerrt injunctton and possesston of Vhe sult property has been disml^ed by both ttie Courts below. (2) The appellant/plaintlff elaimed the sutt property an the ground Uiat the property belonged te> one Adhar, who was her husband's uncle. However, ttie defendant No.1 fraudutently got recorded her name in the suit property claimit^ to be the daughter of Adhar whereas, she is the daughter of Sonsai and nrt Adhar. (3) The Courts below have recorded the findlng thrt defendart No.l's mother Ramkunwar Bai was narried with Adhar in 'Chudf fonn. Though there Is a findu^ that the defendant No.1 Is nrt ^bom out ofthe marriage between Adhar arel Rairtainwar Baiand X/ Con^ct--- '2- ^f""t ''s!^::s that the defendant No.1 was infac^ the daughter of Sonsai, the first husband of Ramkunwar Bai, y^ both theGourts below have found that the property belongir^ to Adhar devolved upon hls wife-Ramkunwar Bai and thereafter to her dai^hter defendant No.1. (4) In fact, the defendant No.1 claimed the rigM over the property through her mother and not exactly throi^i Adhar and as such, the Courts betow have recwded the finding that once ft is found that the mother of the defendant No.1 succeeded to the property of Adhar after the death af the mother of defendant No.1, she (ctefendant No.1) would entitle to succeed in tem»of general rule of successton fn the ease of death of female HirKlu under Sectton 15 ofthe Hindu Succession Act, 1956. (5) The Courts below have not committed any error of law or jurisdiction while dismissing the sult of Uie appellant/plaintlff. (6) Both the Courts below have cmicurrently found that the appellant/plalntiff is not entitled to any reBef. ^ (7) In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, whlch canncrt be interfered In thte second appeal under Section 100 ofthe C.P.C, the Instant appeal faihs and is hereby dismissed at the admisskm stage. i Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^ BS-*