IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR l^ c CIVIL REVISION No. / 2008 Applicants (Defendants) Gulab, S/o Bhagwatiya Aghariya, Aged about 45 years, R/o Semra Pali, Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh^d£L^—-.^-.- - -„ lp3 t'. &.c^ kA<.fc-''2. / Bhagwatiya S/o Shivlal Aghariya Q<-v-s~ ^l " ~ ' .--^ ^\L- y ^,. /- *'•' ' t^ fi't .-2.'^< Aged about 65 years, R/o Village Semra Pali, Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt. >g< (C. Respondents (Plaintiffs) Versus 1 cy,Y. ^ Smt. NamitaWd/o Late Gautam «^" Aghariya, Aged about 30 years, R/o Semra Pali, At present R/o Nawadih, Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh-(C.G-) 2. Minor Neha Kumari, D/o Late Gautam Aghariya, Aged about 4 years, Through - mother namely Smt. Namita Wd/o Gautam Aghariya, R/o Semra Pali, At present Nawadih, Tahsil - Sarangarh, Distt..Raigarh - (C.G.) CIVIL REVISION UN_DER_SECTION 115 OF CIVIL ^te^ tc \ ^ 1 f;- PROCEDURE COD_E d•I 1 tQi % 11itn'l p* '"cS O t ui d. o. o. ^ " ^ 111 ^ ^ i li^ ^ i:IH'l ^ % ^. ±^'^ i !> 'I ^ &D ^ % ^ -1 i ^ ^P 1 1 ^. u. ss, p'. 3 3^cn 'K-rt ^ i S ^ ^111^ ^ 'i ^. p- u_ i ^ 7 ^ ^, .& •% ^ •'^' '^ i. i ^. i I. 't '^ §. i 15, i s ^ ^ ^ i •^ §^ ° ^ <0:^^. ^0/. ^.x*^^. y'J'^. ^<.7sa^-, ^^YA^^-^/ '^' ^> ^>,^~^ ^^^^ ^""v ^ ^ '/. 'hl:fl 'ii'9 '<— HK3H COURT OF CHHATTBGARH AT BILASnjR S. B:HON>BL£^SHroJUSTICE PRASHANT KUMMl MISHRA APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION N0.156 / 2008 Gutab and others Vereus Smt. Namtta and another. Shri Shiv Kumar Dadsena, counsel for the applteants. Shri S.N. Nande, counset for respondents. CIVlLREVtSKM4 UNDER SECTKW1115 OF CWIL PROCEDURE CODE ORAL ORDER (22.06^010) The respondents preferred a suft fw recovery of Rs.17,^0/- being the vafue of agricultural produce for the year 2003-04, of the land that ^ie oMained in partition and was cultivated by the defendants Gutab and Bhagwatiya. (2) The suit Wfas dismfesed by the trial Court, however, the First Appeal prefwed by the respondents hawng been allowed, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the defendants. (3) The case of the plaintiffs in the trial Court was that the defendant No. 2 Bhagwatiya is the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and was holding ance^ral tand. A partition was affected by the defendant No. 2 between his two sons during the life time of her late husband Goutam Aghariya and separate possesshMi was haraled over. Two sons started enjoying their respective shares, however afler about two yeare from the date of partition, her husband died. Her 'J^h' i.e. defendant No.1 and the father-in-law, defendant No.2 prevailed upon her to allow 1 "Ihwn to cultivate the land and in tieu thereof the^agreed to handover ^s^^s^^^^^ -S!^'iS'«"s :'sQSK'[ •-•a,- some part of the value of the agricuttural produce to Uie frfainUffs. B^ieving them the plaintiff agreed and parted with pos^ssion in favour of the defendants, however one year after the sakl arrargement the defendants refused to handover the value of Vns agncultural produce on whteh they were served l^at notfce and thereafter (K'esent suit was fited fbr recovery of Rs.17,750/-. (4) The defendants resisted the claim on the submission inter alia that there was no partitton between the brothere and no such arrangement as claimed by plaintiff has ever taken place and partteularly in absence of any such agreement, the defendants are not liabte to make any payment to the plaintiff. (5) The triarf Court, on ttie basis of material avaitaUe on record, dismissect the suit afler finding ttiat thoigh the plea regarding previous partition has been proved from ttie statement of Bhagwatiya, yet it is not proved by the plaintiffe as to what is the e?act quantity and amount of the agricuttural produce / amourrt to which, ^ne is entitted, and ttius, the suit was dismissed. (6) The firet appellate Court has altowed the appeal and has decreed the suit. <7) Havii^) gone through the material avaitaUe on record this Court is of the opinion that the finding regarding partition or a family arrai^ement wherein the husband of defetKlant No. 1 was altotted some share has been found to te proved by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court. Once the satel arrangement is fbund to be '^ proved, the claim of the plainttffs thal after dteath of her husband, the -«. '^'.^''?^ ^ ".?)3 -f -3- iand was allowed to be cuttivated by the defendants on arrangemCTt, in which they were required to make payment of the value of i®ricu ural prodtK»to the plaintiffe appeare more probable. Since there is a findir®of fact by (he first appeUate Court, whteh camiot be interfered in exercise of power under Secdion 115 of C.P.C., and evw <^ierwise, there is no errw of jurisdictiwi <»mmittedby <he first appellate Court and the findtngs recorded by the firet appellate Court does nrt a^eare tp be pen/erse, this Court is not inclined to intafere in the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. (8) There is no substance in this civil revision, ft thereftn'e, faite and is hereby dismissed. gjy. Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 'G.