&^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SBCOSD APPEAL N0. 120 0V 2011 APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 1. Sunder Siagh, S/o Late Shri Dev Siagh Aged about 65 years, R/o Village Khardi, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur; Chliattisgarh Cbam Singh S/o Late Shri Dev Siagh Aged about 55 years, R/o ViUage Khardi, Tehsil Pendia Road, DistrietBiIaspur, Chhattisgarh. Asha Ram> S/o Late Kashi Ram. Singh Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Khardi, Tehsfl Pendra Road, District Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh Maagal Siagh, S/o Late Mayarain, Aged about 40 years, R/o Village Khardi, TehsU Pendia Road District Bflaspur Chhattisgarh. Bamu, S/o Late Mayaram, Aged about 32 years, R/o VflUage Khardi, Tetisil Pendra Road Distnct BUaspur Chbattisgarh. Bahadur Singh, S/o' Late Kewal Singh, Aged atoout 50 years, R/o ViUage Khardi, Tehsil Pendra Road District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Dhani Ram, S/o Late Kewal Singh, Aged about 40 years, R/o Vfflage Khardi, TehsU Pendra Road Distdct Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. Kripal Siugh, S/o Late Kewal Siagh., Aged about 38 years, R/o ViUage Khardi, Tehsil Pendra Road District Bilaspur Chliatdsgarh. Dhaa Singh, S/o Late Kewal Siagh, Aged about 35 years, R/o Villagc Khardi, TehstL Pendra Road District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. State of Chhttisgarh Through District Collector, BUaspur, District Bilaspur. SBCOHD APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 100 OP THE CIVIL PROCBDURE 2. 3. 4. 5. VERSUS RESPONDBNTS/ DEPENDANTS 3. 5. CODB^ 1908. LAi (8B :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present : Mr. Ankit Singhal, AdvDcate for the appellants. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 5. Mone for the respondents No. 1 to 4, although represented, ^-- ^ S 'life'^aE- 1 :si^S^ <!». '^> JUDGEMEMT (Passed on,2S/ll/2011) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1, application for condoaation of delay in filing second appeal. Present sccond appeal has been preferred after 3 days of its lunitation. On due consideration, fhe grounds inentioned in appUcation, I.A. No. 1 is atlowed. Delay ia fUiag the second appeal is hereby condoned. 2. Heard on adiiiission. 3. By this second appeal under Sectfon 100 of the CivU Procediire Code, 1908 appeUants have chaUenged fhe legalily aud propnely of the judgment aad decree dated 30/9/2010 passed by Additional District Judge (P.T.C.), Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in CivU Appeal No. 52-A/2009 alHrming fhe judgment and decree of dismissal of suit dated 31/1/2009 passed by CivU Judge Class-II, Pendra Road, District BUaspur (C.G.) in CivU Suit No. 166-A/2007 whereby suit for declaration of title and pennanent iajunction filed on behalfofpresent appellaats has been disinissed. 4. Mr. Axifcit Singhal, Advocate for the appeUants and Ms. Saageeta Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 5 are heard. 5. Judpment aad decree ofboth flie Courts below and record ofbofh the Courts below perused. 6. As per pleading aud evidence of the pardes, one Dbamuati Kunwar has sold the property to Dev Siugh i.e. predecessor in-tifle of respondents No. 1 to 4 and; also sold the property to Dev Stagh predecessor in-tifle ofappeUants. On 23/5/ 1990 Kewal Singfa, fafher of respondents No. 1 to 4 i.e. predecessor ia-title of respondents No. 1 to 4 executed fhe agreeinent vide Ex. P-5 fhat while executing sale deed by inistake DhanTnati Kuawar has sold Khasra No. 14/ 1 in fhe ! name of Kewal Singh but he has not purchased the same. She has further agreed fhat she has retum fhe land to Dev Siagh. On the ff- -_? ^ 9. basis of aforesaid agreeiaent, suit for dectaration aud permanent uyunction has been ffled by plaiatiffs/appeUants agalnst respondents, same was cbaUenged by respondents No. 1 to 4. Afier providing au opportunity ofhearing to fhe parties, leamed CivU Judge Class-II, Pendra Road, District Bflaspur (C.G.) Iias disaiissed fhe suit, saiae was aBirmed ia civil appeal by judgment aad decree unpugned. Adnuttedly, property was owned by Dhanniati Kuawar, sale dced of aforesaid property has beea executed toy Dhanmati Kuawar in tavour of Dev Siagh ie. fafher of respondents No. 1 to 4, She has also executed sale deed in. favour of fafher of appeUaats relatiag to ofher property. In case of auy mistake, aay of the sale deed aUeged Dhaumati Kunwar executaiifs of sale deed was only coinpetent to execute the correction deed but she has not executrf such deed. In case Kewal Stugh, fafh.er of respondents No. 1 to 4 were ready to give or retum fhe property to Dev Singh fhen he was required to transler fhe property ia accordance with procedure prescribed i.e. by seU, gtft & ofher modes recognized under the law but not by executing aay agreenient which has not been adinitted by their sons & heirs, in fhese ciTcumstatices, by disnussiag civil suit & ctvU appeal, bofh fhe Courts below Iiave not coiiuaitted aay iUegaUty requiring any interference iu second appeal, I do not find any substaucc or substantial question of law for decision of fhis second appeal. Consequenfly, second appeal is Uable to be disnussed and is hereby dismisscd at the stage ofadiiiission itself.No ordcr as to costs. Interim application is also disinissed. Judge ^ ^—^-l^-'^w^-^^^'.'-^^-^