HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH'ftrgtLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Second Appeal No. 37 of 2008 Chakhud S/o Late Shri Sawna, aged about 47 years, Caste Turiya, Agriculturist, R/o Village Turiyabira, Police Station and Tahsd Lundra, Djstrict Surguja (CG) versus Resoondents 1. Budhram S/o Luru, aged about 29 years, 2. Chainu S/o Late Shri Thuru, aged about 37 years, 3. Khiru S/o Late Shri Thuru, ageci about 35 years, AII belong to caste Turiya, R/o village Turiyabira, Poiice Station and Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (CG) 4. State of C.G. through the Collector Surguja Ambikapur (CG) (Defendants) Memo of Second Aooeal Under Section IQOoftheCode of Civil Procedure. 1908 Present: Shri Rajesh Pandey. counsel forthe appeHant/plaintjff. Shri Akhjj Agrawal, PL for State. ORALORDER (Passed on 23ro ofApril, 2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellanVplaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2007 passed jn civij appeal No.02-A/2005 by the 1st Additional Djstrict Judge, Surguja, Ambjkapur affirmjng the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2005 passed in dvil suit No.397-A/2002 by the IInd Additional Civd Judge, Class-1, Ambjkapur, Distt. Surguja, wherebythe plamtiff's suit for declaration that he was the sole owner and jn possession of the suit (and in Annexure-A and in the atternative for partition and possession of the same was dismissed. ^<^tcf-—a. "-%. (3) Learned counsel for the appetlant/plaintifF did not assail the impugned judgment and decree in so far as it rejatoito the first relief dai'med for declaration that the appellant/plaintiff was the sole owner and, in possession of the suit land since this pleading was wholly inconsistent with the other retief sought by the appellant/plaintiff. As regards the redef for partition and separate possession, jt was clearly admitted not only by the appellanVplaJntiff but also by the wjtnesses for the defendant that the partition had already taken place betw^en the brothers and they were in possession of their respective shares. In this regard also, pleadings in para-S are wholly inconsistent. Both the Courts have, on the basis of the admjssion by the plaintjff as also the witnesses for the defendant that the partition had alreaciy taken ptace between the parties, refused to grant the relief of partition also. (4) In my considered opinion, the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and no question of law is involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admjssion. (5) In view of the above, I.A. No.1 for exemption from filing afRdavit of the appellant in support of memo of appeal and applications and I.A. No.2 for grant of permission to array Smt. Thuishi and Khakhri as responctents stand disposed of. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge <^T