HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^s SBCOND APPBAL N0. 268 OF 2011 APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS RESPONDBNTS DEFENDANTS 1. 2. VERSU8 1. 2. 3. 4, 8. 10. 11. 12. Devseer Bai, wife of Late Shri Maauam. Venua, aged about 55 years, resident of Vitlage Khorsi, Tchsil Aaraag, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Ishwari Bai W/o Jay Bharat B^hel D/o Late Mani Ram. Venna 30 Years R/o Vill^e Sakri Tah. TiMa Distt. Raipur(C.G.). Smt Kiuiti Bai, wife of Late Shri Maniram Verma 65 yrs. Shiv Kuinar Verma, son of Late Shri Mamram Verma 45 yrs. Tilak, son of Late Shri Maniram Venna, 43 yrs. Chandhas, son of Late Shri Manirata Verma 40 yrs. Pawau, son of Late Shri Mamraai Venaa 38 yrs. Rampyari, daughter of. Late Shri Mamram Verma 36 yrs. Unrashi, daughter of late Shri Maiuram. Verma34 yrs. Dulari, daughter of Late Shri Maniram Verma 32 yrs. Lata, daughter of Late Shri Mamram. Verma 30 yrs. Parmeshwari, daughter of Late Shri Maairani Verm.a 28 yrs. Aaaapuma, daughter of Late Shri Maauain Verma 26 yrs. AU are R/o of Vitlage Kborsi, Thana Kharora, Tehsil Aarang, Dtetrict Raipur, Chhatdsgarb. The State of Chhattisgarh, fhrough District CoUector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. SECOND APPBAL UNDER SECTION lOO^OF THB CODE OP CIVIL PROCBDURE. 1908. (SB :Hon'Ue Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Kuinar.J'ekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 12. Respondents No. 1 to 11 not noticed. 1. OR&L-JUDGEMBNT (Passedoa 23/08/2011) By this secdud appeal under Section 100 of thc Code of CivU Proc^dure, 1908 (in short 'ttie Code') appeUants have chaUengcd fhe legaMty aad 2. 3. propriety of fhe judgxuent aad decrce of dismissal <rf civil appeal dated 12/5/20ll passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in civil appeal No. 19-A/2011 afiirming the judgment and decree ofdismissal of suit for declaration, partition and possession dated 25/8/20l0 passcd by 16& Civil Judge Class-2, Raipiu- (C.G.) m civi]t suit No. 36-A/2009 whereby 16th Ciwil Judge Cte.ss-2, Raipur (C.G.) has held that present appellant No. 1 was inarried/was residiag wifb. Maniram Verma as his wife during substaace his marriage wifb. respondent No. l aad appeUacit No. 2 has not bom as a resutt ofby-logical relation of appellant No. 1 and Manirain Verma therefore fhey are not entitled for deelaration, partition aad possessioa over the pioperty left by Manirani Verma agaia.st rcspondeiits No. 1 to 11. " Both the judgiaents and decree impiigned perused, As per judgment aad decree of both the Courts below respondent No. 1 was legally wedded wife of Maairam Verma aad respondents No. 2 to 11 are fheir children, dumig substance of first inarriage of Maiureun Verma with respondent No. l Sint. Kunti Bai, appeUaat No, l csaae to the house of Maairam Verma and resided as kcep or wtfe. On the date of death of Maniram Verma age of the appeUant No. 2 is 1 year. Her inofher appeUaat No. 1 started Iiviug together with Maiurani Venuia onty since 1 year before deafh of Mamraua Venna. in absence of aay docuinentary evidence death certi&cate of Maniram Verma and birth certi&cate of respondent No. l both the Courts below have held fhat appeBant No. 2 is not legitimate child/daughter of Maniram Verma. Definitcly, reasons best kncwn to the appellaats they have not produced documen'taiy evidence of birth and death. Reasons best knowa to fheai aad absence of such eviden.cc toofh the Courts below have not coKunitted any illegatity ia disinissiag the suit and appeal, I do not fiad aay substaace iu fh.e second appeal or §ny substantial question of law. Consequently, second appeal is devoid of'merits aad saine is Uable to be dismissed aad is hereby disinissed. No order as to costs, -^- Sd/- T-P- Siiarma ^