IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH SECOND APPEAL N0. ^^<& of 2007 Sifigls BencS APPELLANT ^- . ,/Sakharam aged about 90 years S/o Late l.-^"... shri Sarju PrasadTiwari, R/o Village- r \ n..^' f.^"".\.V>^''. .. Sindhauri, Tehsil Rajim, District- Raipur ,,^'^P^""<C-G-> •l^^At^'r '^.^ ^ ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS o^ 1; Harihar aged about 47 years S/o Late Shri Baldu Prasad @ Rudra Prasad Tiwari 2. Ramanuj aged about 50 years S/o Late Shri Baldu Prasad @ Rudra Prasad Tiwari ,^:,-^GUi'y Tiwari ^Gi> ^\^ v ,^\^ Both residents of Village- Sindhauri, ^^ TehsilRaiim. District-Raii -^to'G" Tehsil Rajim, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 100 QF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1 ^'^- ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIA8PUR SECONDAPPEAL N0^86 OF 2007 '% APPELLANT RE8PONDENTS Sakharam Versus Harihar and others; SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 fSinsle Bendi: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. AffarwaL J.) Present : Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Rathor®,counsel for the appellant. Shri B.P.Shamia, counsel for respondents NO.I& 2. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALJUDGMENT (Passed on 06th day ofAprfl, 2011) Heard on admission. 2. This is defendant's second appeal filed under Sectioa 100 of the CPC against the judgment- and decree da^ad 16-04-2(X)7 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District Raipur in Civil Appeal No.29-A/2006 dtsmissing the appellanVdefendant's aiyeal and afi&rming the judgment and decree dated 06-09-2006 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Gariyaband in Civil Suit No. 1 5-A/2004. 3. Facts in briefare as under: Plaintififa instituted a suit for declaration of title over suit tand and permaneat injunction. Aecordmg to plamtiffs, ia OTat partitton dated 20-02-1958, the suit laad was allotted to pNntiffs' father Rudra Prasad @ Vsddu Prasad and since then, eariier hNN^IIINnl( plaintiffs' father and after his deaA, they are in its possession. The suit land was aever sJlotted to Fekan Bai in above partition. Defendant No.l is disputing plaintiffs' right and claimmg title over the suit laad on the ground: Fekaa Bai had executed Will m his fevour. The above Will is forged and fa.bricated. Also Fekan Bai had no right to execute such Will. 4. The claim was contested by defendant No. 1 iater-alia on the ground: he is the owner ofthe suit land pursuant to the Wtll executed by Fekan Bai iti his favour. 5. The Trial Court on q?preciation of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, decreed plaitittffs" suit inter-aHa finding: the suit land was allotted to plaiatif&' father Rudra, Prasad in partition. Plaintiffs are its owners: Late Faken Bai did not execute aay Will in fevour ofdefendant. 6. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, affirmed tfae judgment and decree passed byAe Trial Court and dismissed the appeal pfetened by defendiuit. 7. I have heard leamed counsel for the appellaat asd perused the records ofboth the Courts below. 8. In view of finding of both the Courts below, the suit land was never allotted to Late Fekan Bai m partition, and lltierefore, allegal Will said to be executed by her in defen<lant?s fevow is of no consequence. .;..^ 9. The findings are essential findings offact. Learaed Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant failed to point out any illegality, perversily or absurdity in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. Therefore, no substaatial question oflaw arises for determiaation ofthis Court in the instant appeat. 10. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal withoat there being any substantial question of law involv^t in the appeal. Existence ofsubstantial question dflaw is the sine'qua-iwntoT Ifae exercise of jurisdictioft under the amended Section 100 of the Gode ofCivil Procedure. Learaed counsel for the appellatit failed to point out any substantial question of law wNch may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any sybstantial question of law arises for determinatioti ofthis Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal at admission stage. ^vr 11. In view of the above, since no substantial qiiestion of taw arises for determination of the case, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order astp costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal