^[oql^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant/ Defendant No.3 Respondent/ Plajntiff ResDondent Defendant No.1 Respondent Defendant No.2 Respondent Defendant No.4 S.A.No. 398 of 2007 Ghasiram Sahu, S/o Bavno Sahu, Caste Teli, aged about 45 years, Occupation-agriculture, R/o Village Padigaon, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. Bhagirathi, S/o Parmeshwar Pradhan, Caste Kolta, aged about 40 years, Occupation-agriculture, R/o Vjllage Padigaon, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG) 2. Vishakha Mata Tulsi, @ Maanmati W/o Tikaram Sahu, aged about 32 years, Caste Teli, Occupation-Nil, R/o Jhanakpur, Tahsil Sarangarti, District Raigarh (CG) 3. Saybani Mata Tutsi @ Maanmati W/o Trilok Sahu, Caste Teli, aged about 30 years, Occupation-Nil, R/o Village Jorabaga, Up-TahsiJ Lakhanpur Belpahad, Kstrict Jharsuguda (Orissa) 4. State • of ChhattJsgarh throogh Collector, District Raigarh (CG) Second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Present: Smt Hameeda Siddiquj, counsel for the appellant Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for respondent No.1, Shri T.R. Dahire, counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. Shri Akhil Agrawal, PL for State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21.04.2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/defendant No.3 is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed in civil appeal No.30-A/2006 by the 1st Additional Dis^ict Judge, Raigarh afRrming ttte judgment and decree dated 30.08.2006 passed m civil sujt No.210-A/2003 by the IVth Civil Judge, Class-11, Raigarh whereby the suit instituted by the t^o^^-- ^ respondent No.l/plaintiff for declaration of titte and possession over the lands measuring 1.112 hecteres situated in Village Pudigaon Patwari Halka No.2, Tahsjl. Pussaur, Distt. Raigarh was decreed in favour oftiie respondent No.l/plaintiff. (3) Brief undisputed facts are that the respondents/defendants No.1 & 2 Vishakha and Saybani are sisters and daughters of Tulsi. The appellanVdefendant No.3 Ghasiram is the son of Bavno Sahu through one Sundermati. The respondent No.l/plaintSff Bhagirathi instStuted ttie suit for declaration of title and possession on the averment that he had purchas^d the suit lands from Vishakha and Saybani by registered sale deed on 20.03.1998. This land was recorded in revenue records in the name of Tulsi during her life time and after her death in ttte name of Vishakha and Saybani who succeeded to the properiy left tey mother Tulsi. The appellant/defendant No.3 resisted the suit pleading /nfer- afia that he was ttie adopted son of Tulsi and therefore, on ttiis ba®is, claimed titie over the suit lands. It was also pleaded Uiat he was in long and peaceful possession of the suit lands and a suit for regaining possession had been instituted against him by Vishakha and Saybani (Civii Suit N0.185-A/2003). (4) Both the Courts below have, on proper appreciatioR of the evidence, recorded a concurrent finding that the appetlant/defendant No.3 had miserably failed to prove that he was the adopted son of Tulsi. On this premise, the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of tlie respondent No.l/piaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has conciwed with the said finding. During arguments, learned counsel fer the appeilanVdefendant No.3 has not been able to create any dert in the said concurrent finding of fact, ptea of adverse possession was n<rt taken by the appellant/defendant No.3. In this view of the matter, even if the appeilant/defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land and Vishakha and. Saybani had instituted a suit against the appellant/defendant No.3 for possession of the suit land whtch was pending, the respondent No.l/plaintiff was entitled to a deeree for declaration of title and possession over the suit land. - ^e w. 3 ^ ^ -3- (5) In my considered opinion, the said finding recorded by both the Courts below is purely a finding of fact and no substanttal qu^tion of law arises for determlnation of this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. (6) In view of the above, I.A. No.1, which is an applieation nnder Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. for grant of stay and l.A. No.2 for tirgent hearing stand disposed of. ; Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya