HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 452/2004 APPELILAMT RESPONDBNT8 VEBBBUS 1. 2. (a) (fa) (c) (d) (e) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (^ (b) (c) (d) 8. 9. 10. (a) (b) (c) 11. Amamath S/o late SIiiv Baksh Ram, aged about 30 years, Occupation Cultivation, resident of vfllage Rajpur, Tfaana Rajpyr, Distt. Sui^uja (C.G.). Nand Deshwar S/o late Sbiv Baksh, aged 35 years. Mst. BaUcuuwar widow Vishwanath aged 40 years. Preiu Shaakar S/o ]ate Vishwanafh aged 22 years. Ramesh S/o late late Vishwanath aged 19 years. Ku. F'ramila D/o late Vishwaaath a^ed 18 years. i Ku. RinM D/o late Vishwanatti, a^ed 10 years. Minors through Guardian uiother Mst. Ball£uawar widow of late Vishwaaath, AU R/o viUage Rajpitr, Thaaa & Tah. Rajpur, Distt. Suiguja (C.G.). Ramashaukar S/o late Haricharan, ayeA 30 years. Uiaashankar S/o aged 25 years. J Talkunwar widow Haricharaa, 25 years. Hiramani widow of late Hari Pratap aged 45 years. IndrakaBun widow of Ramawtar, aged 35 years. Shambhu S/o Ram. Awtar, 20 years. Jaaki s/o Ram Awtar, age 20 yeara Guddi @ Kalawati D/o Ram Awtar, aged 18 years. Rrisltaa Prasad S/o late Hari Rrasad aged 25 years. Ram Sewak S/o Hari Prasad, svged 19 Yr. Phulpat widow of Guddu, 30 years. Abhuhek S/o Guddu, aged 2 years. Guddi D/o Guddu, aged 3 inonths. Respondent No. 10 (b) & (c) fhrough guardiaa aiother and iiatuiral giiardiaa 10 (^, AU residcnts ofvfflage Rajpur, Thaaa Rajpur, Tahsil Rajpjtir, Distt,Sm^uja(C.G,). | Ajay S/o late Hari Prasad, 27 years late Hari.charan, 12. 13. 14. Laxmi S/o late Hari Prasad, 25 years. AU residents of viU^e Rajpur, Thana Rajpur, Distt. Suiyija (C.G.). Budha D/o Hari Prasad, aged about 22 years, occupation -Dom.estic, R/o vUlage Rajpur, Thana & Tah. Ainbikapur, Distt. Surguja ( C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh TIuough Collector, Suiyya, Ambikapur. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEOURE CODB. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.} Present:- Shri BhupendraSmgh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. fbr theState/respondent No. 14. ORAL- JUDGEMENT (Passedon 09/11/2010) By fhis second appeal under Section 100 of thc C.P.C. appeUant has challenged fhe legatity and propriety of the judginent aad decree dated 30/4/2004 passed by 5th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, District Suiguja in civU appeal No. 4-A/2003 afHnning fhc judgment aiid decree of dismissal of civil siut dated 28/4/2000 passed by Additk>nal Judge to the Court of Civil Judge-Class-1, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No. 50- A/98 whereby leamed Civil Judge Class-1, Ambikapur has disnussed fhe civU suit for declaratkau of tifle and injunction filcd by fhe appeUant agaiast his brothers aad relativcs. Shri Bhupendra Siugh, Advocate for the appcUant aad Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. forfhe State/respondent No. 14 are heard. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat submite fhat as per brief facts of fhe case appeBantwas 5ttlson ofSIuv Baksh Ram. Shiv Baksh Ram giflted the property equalfy to his 4 sons durmg his life tune aud after 4 years ofthe aUeged gift present appellant No. 1 was bom fhereafter his father died, at flie tiine of deafh of his father he was in possession of 7.158 htrs ^ncultural land shown ia schedule-^ situated at vUlage Rajpur. Leamed counsel for the appeUant further subnuts that at the tuae of such gift appellant No. 1 was not ia existence and his fafher died at earty age therefore present appeUautNo. 1 has derued of his tegal nsht over the property as a 5th son of Shiv Baksh Ram therefore he ientifled forl declaration of title and permanent injunction relatmg to the Iproperiy Ife^tj ofl ^ i .-fy- 6. -^- by his deceased fafher but both fhe Courts below has not considercd the aforesaid facts and has dismissed cinl suit and civU appeal. As per pleadiag and evidence at the ttme of aUeged gift or disposal of property by Shiv Baksh Ram.. appeUant was not in existence even he was not womb and he bora after 4 years of aUeged disposal of the property. Deflnitety, afiser death of his fafher he has succeeded the property of his father along wlth his 4 brothers aud mother. As per pleadiag at thc time ofdeafh ofhis fafher, his father was Ownerof the property shown iu schedulc-^. In fhese circuiastance aloae appeUant No. 1 or appeUants No. 1 & 2 son and mother were not entiflcd for declaration of title over entire property and penaanent injuaction agaiast co-sharer/co-heu-. Both the Courts below has r^htty dismissed the suit and appcal of the appellaat, I do not find aay substaatial question of law for decision of fhis second appeal. Conscquenfly, fhis second appeal is Uable to be dismissed aud te hereby disinissed. No order as to costs. r sd^L.lr T. P. Sharma Judge