HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Plajntiff) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Second Appeal No.217 of 2004 Syraj Bai, D/o Mukut Ram Lodhi Aged about 42 years R/ovillage Udan, Teh. Ghhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon Versus 1, MinorHaldhar, S/o Krishlal Lodhi,Aged about 12 years Through Natyral Guardian Father Krishial Lodhi, S/o Sukhit Lodhi R/o village Udan (DefendantNo.1) 2. Minor Bhairolal, S/o Krishlal Lodhi, Aged about 10 years Through Natural Guardian Father Krishlal Lodhi, S/o Sukhit Lodhi R/o village Udan (Defendant No.2) 3. Krishlal Lodhi, S/o Sukhit Lodhi Aged aboyt 35 years Ocfiupation Cultivation R/ovillage lidan (DefendantNo.3) 4. Gautam, Sso Sonsingh Lodhi Aged about 29 years Occupation Cultivauon R/o village Udan (Defendant Nq:4) 5. Mehatarin Bai, Mukutram Lodhi Aged about 37 years Qccupation Cultivatjon Rfovillagejeeratola • (PlaintiffNo.2) All are resident of Tehsil Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 6. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No.5) {Second civil appeal underSection 100 of Civil ProcedureCode} R^sent: Mr. Sanjay Patel, counselfortheappellant. Mr, U.K. Singh Ghandel, Panet Lawyer for the State/respondent Sinale Beneh: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J N6.6, i^fwsk '.,"slr'% fillM* 'l 'Vt-^'^ "'t'iBieaas!"'*1' :;A Bonla ORALJUDGMENT (6-9-2010) 1. BythisseGond appeal, the appellant has challenged legality & propriety of the judgment & decree dated 9-2-2004 passed by the Additional DistriGt Judge, Khairagarh in Civil Appeal No.33-A/97 affirming the judgrrient & decree of dismissail of civil suit for declaratiQn of sale defid nulland void, dated 14-3-97 passed by the Civil Judge Class-ll, Khairagarh in CivilSujt No.215-A/94. 2. As per the pleadings ofthe parties, Mukutram - father of the appellant herein & respondent No.5 herein succeeded the property from their father along with brother Tikuram. Partition took pjlace between the parties & Mukutram became owner of the property received by him on partition, then there was oral partition that his two daughters i.e. the appellant herein& respondent No.5 herein. But Mukutram has sold the property to respondents No.1 & 2 herein Haldhar &,Bhairolal. Suit for declaration of the sale deed null and void was filed by the appellant herein & respondent No.5 herein which was denied by the other respondents. Finally after providing opportunity of hearlng to the parties, learned Civil Judge Glass-11 dismissed the suit. Judgment & decree of fhe civitsuit was challenged in appeal before thelowerappellate Court and the lower appellate Court while affirming the judgment& decree of the civilsuit has dismissed the appeal, 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties present, perused the judgment& decree and records ofbotMtheCourtsbelow. 4. As perthe records, Mukutramwassole pwnerofthe prppertyandtie has executed sale deed in favour of respondents No.1 &2 herein. The appellant herein & respondent No.5 herein have failed to prove any partition or acquisition of title in their fayour and in absenee of any acquisition in favour of fhe appellant & respondent No.5, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and theappeal. I do nptfind any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal, The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, at theadmission stage itself. Noorder as tocosts. ^_————— Sd/-^:.r.i ^::-^.\. : '.,1 T. P. Sharma ll-. . •t: '\