6.^ INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR (C^G.) SlngfeBencb Second Appeal No. ^ ^ Of 2006 Appellant Plaintiff 5./L.* ^Narsingh, aged about 20 years '>*W y ^ _ ^w / .^5 ^>/ Respondents 'Defendants y^0^ Son of Shri Bhuneshwar, Resident of Village Odkatoli (Chhatabar), Ppst Raikera, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.). Versus l^ Bhuneshwar, aged about 36 years Son of Shri Dashrath, Caste Mahakul Resident of Village Chhatabar, Post Raikera, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.). The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Collector, District Jashpur (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ._A__—.—— XI-HC-78 3^ToFT^Jcb cr§TT3TT^T9h^i<=h ^^T^TRTQ^T, ^TTl^41(o, f^clKriy ^fi-No. 17SJ^^6 +(1*K<11 Sih+lich ^ 200 3<l^l ^5|ch (^cii^q^) ?^TTW: ^cT 3T[^?T 24.07.2006 Shri P.P. Sahu, couns| Arguments heard on s| Order dictated as foUolws: This is the plamtifFs <^l^?^l411ri HTTMt ^ te^t <f^^l< ^3:rf^RT3TI^T sl for the appeUaat. dmission. UralOrder second appeal, who lost ia bofh fhe Coiuls. This adses out ofjujlgmeat and decrce dated 20.12.2005 passed m Civil Appeal No.| Jashpur arising out of Ju<| passed m Civil Suit No. 24-| between defendaat No.l 21-A/2005 by the District Judge, [gnient and decrce dated 11.3.2005 A/2001 by the CivU Judge, Class-II, Jashpuniagar. The brief facts are fh^t fhe plamtiff fUed a siiit for specific perfoniiaace of an oral agr€|einentwhich is said to have entered and his mofher Snit. Ushawati sometime ia fhe inonfh of Iflay, 1998. The plaint aUegations are fhat Ushawati and defendaijit No. 1 had performed a Gandharwa Marriage ia fhe year 1983 |and on some dispiite/fherc was aa oral ^reement between thejai that defendaat No. 1 wiU execute a rcgistered sale-deed ia favo^ir of fhe plamtifF in rclation to some spect&ed laiid, mentioned i|a the rclevant colunin of the plaiat aad the plaiatiff shatl becoupie owiier thereof. The cause of action arose when the defendaat d|id not execute such sale-deed as per fhe oral agreed between No.l. )ther of fhe plaiatiff aad defendaat P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TI^T^T^i<+) cTSTT 3TT^T ^TTO ^ vatti ^ <^^ +11*1^1 ai+<ich 7^[ ^i^id^, ^Tn^^Ko, ^cnwy ^.fi. No. /7^/Z^o6^[ 200 311^1 ^5<ch (y<t^<s<^) ^RTT^K ^T 3T1^T — J^ -^ Coilirt, The leamed trial fhat the plaintiff could not| agreemeut prevaUmg disniissed. The AppeUate Court a|l fhe appeal filed by fhe plainjtiff and Coi^rt, after recorduig evidence, found estabUsh fhat fhere was aiiy such betw^en fhe parties and fhe suit was decrce passed by fhe trial C{ decrce passed by fhe lower fhis second appeal. Admittedly, the factu^a aad its performaiice betag s<: a questiou of fact aad ftie was no such oral agrcement| Siace fhere is fhat no such oral agreenien| ia absence of auy peryersity| said findiags m Second App^al. Iii fhe opmion offhis is iavolved ia this appeal under Section 100 offhe C| motlon stage. tefo concuntent °hl^?<vl41r1 HTH^ff ^f f^t <RK-<I< ^^Tf^TW^T [so took smular views aad disndssed confirmed the judgment aiid l^urt. It is against fhis judgment aad ^ppeUate Court, fhe plamtiffhas filed of existence of an oral agrceiaent ^ught by tihie plauitifF in fhe suit was courts have deterxmned fhat fhere IprevaUiag between fhe parties. findiag by fhe two Courts below |t was prevaiUng between tihie parties^ t, I do not find rcason to mterfere ia pourt, uo substantial question oflaw w|arrantmg interference by this Court |P.C, The appeal is dismissed at fhe Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.