. L *mggg @Wg/ ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR pr% SECOND APPEAL N6. Of 2006 / Appellant 1. Krishna Kum:ar Tiwari, aged about f ‘ \ 45 years s/o *Dwarika Prasad Tiwari r/o village Dhaniadoli, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur (C.G) Versus Respondents J4’ Itwari aged about 60 years s/o Basawan Marar r/o village Darwaja, Tahsii Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G) State of Chhattisgarh — Through— Collecto‘r, District Bilaspur (C.G) /, MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 i li‘ AA S yk XI-HC-78 Wm' $AwW/H. a1 2'00é WW(W) WWW WWW mmdwm éawm mwwm 15.01.2007 Appelkinf-Krishna Kumar Tiwari by 5hri A.V.5ridhar, AdvocaTe. Sfate by 5hri Akhil Agraj‘‘ml, P.L. Heard an admission. The phinfiff/appeuan‘r is daied 23.03.2006 passed in Addifiond Disir'icf Judge, aggrieved by The judgmenT and decree Civil Appeal No,25-A of 2005 by ngeii’ DisTricT Bilaspur wherein The dismissai of ihe suif by fhe Civ I Judge Ciass-IA Mungeii an 7.5.2005 in Civil Suit N0.13-A 0f 20m was 2, Briaf fads of The case are fhai The piaim'iff insfifufed a suif for possession affer' demoliti n af superstrucfure pleading Thai The suif land was fhe joinf family repenty of the plainiiff. There was an oral pariifion in 1998 in whic The suii' land fell fa the share of The plainliff and was recorded in house over fhe suil‘ land and w 3. The ploinfiff also did n 1‘ seek The relief of declarm‘ion of his fitle over The suiT land. 4. The defendanT resisTed The claim on The ground ThaT he was in long, uninTernupTed adverse ossession of The suiT lands which his oncesTor had received fro perfecTed his TiTle over The s e. 5. The Civil Judge, Class I, Mungeli dismissed The suiT on The ground ThaT The plainTiff had iled To prove his TiTle over The suiT land and had led no documenTary evidence evidencing parTiTion or joinT firmed. is name. DefendanT has consTrucTed a in unauThorized possession Thereof. The ersTwhile ruler and had Thus XI—HC-78 WW 1H 200g WWW wmm WW%'W®QJI %Wm title and not on any weakness in the defendani's case, who was admiiiedly in possession of The suii land. I am of fhe considered cpinior WWW Admi‘rfedly, fhe defendam was in possession of the suit hnds. 11he piaim‘iff sfa+ed in cross-examinafion paragraph 3 fha‘r his ancesfor Had purchased '1he suif lands from Rqjci Garud' Das. However, no documentary evidence fhereaf was fi!ed. Thus, in The absence of any d cumenfary evidence to shew fhm‘ fhe sui'r {ands were purchased by ssession of fhe plainfiff‘s fumiiy was recorded aver fhe suif land, fh Sewer Caur‘r dismissed fhe suit 6. In Fir-sf Appeai. ihe iea ned Appeiia‘ie Cour? has affirmed fhe judgmenfand decree 3f The lo er- Cour‘i‘. I have perused fhe record ef ihe Civil Sui? No.13-A of 2001 WW(W) passession over _fhe suif land. he ancestor of the plaintiff from Raia 5arud Das an fhaf fhe joim and have disc considered the evidence bm‘h documen‘iary as we” as am! an record. The piainfiff could succeed only en ‘ihe sirengi‘h of his tial question of law is involved in this is dismissed at the stage of admission. kg aw sts. Sd-/ Thai fhere is no legal dacumeni‘ary evidence fo establish plain‘i‘iff/ xppellani’s iiile over the suif land. O~al evidence as fa source of plairfiff's rifle is also vague. The finding recorded by the lower Court as well as First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit land is thus impeccable. « Thus, no substan appeal. As a. resuit, this appeal There shall be no order as to cc Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i lei-.0; " A4 ‘ J”