HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Second Appe‘al No.6 of 2004 Banlram son of Chaltu aged about 75 years by caste Satnaml reSIdent of 'Vlllage Rohra Khurd Tehsd Mungeh District Bllaspur Chhattlsgarh Versus ‘ Sudarshan son of Bhlkharl aged about ‘ ~ 40 years » Baisakha Bai wife of Bhikhari aged about 48 years ' Pushpi daughter of Bhikhari aged about 23 years. Suresh son of Bhikhari aged about 19 years . Sukhmanl daughter of Bhlkhan aged about 18 years Gopal son of Bhikhari aged about 9 years. . ‘ . Minor through natural guardian " Baisakha Bai. ‘ Defendants 1 A to F are the legal heirs of deceased/plaintiff Bhikhari. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, BilaSpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) T/: lntiff ' RESPONDENT‘S: {Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} ‘ Present Mr Vimlesh Bajpai counsel forthe appellant Mr Rakesh Kumar Jha Deputy Govt Advocate for the State/ respondent No 2 Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J I ORAL JUDGMENT (28—10-2010) Bythis second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C.,*the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decreedated31-10- 2003 passed by the 3m Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Mungeli in Civil Appeal No.11A/2002 affirrning the judgment & decree dated 5-2—2001 passed b the vil Jude Class-l, Muneli tn iv Suit No.3OA,( © APPELLAN (Pai) ‘ “ ' . y Ci g g Cil /88 whereby learned Civil Judge Class-l has decreed the suit filed on behQ of the appellant herein for declaration of title over the property in dispute w . As per pleadings of the parties, Khasra No.520l1 areal .60 acres situate at Village Rohra Khurd, Tahsil Mung‘eli, District Bilaspur was owned by Phool Bai (since deceased) which she sold to Bhikhari (since deceased) vide registered sale deed dated 19-3—75. As per original claim of Bhikhari who has filed civil suit, he has not sold any land to the appellant Baniram and he has tiled suit for declaration of his title. By filing written statement, Baniram/defendant No.1 has contested the suit and has alleged that he has purchased the property from Bhikhari vide registered sale ed e 1 Te pplant n has al lm a ol B has execue tere o u the enn i sit Bhikh d and hs eg heirs we bouht on pdecy of civl u, ari die i lal re rg r. fter' prvidi ptuniy o th pt ed Ci recod A ong oport of hearing t e aries, learn vil g lass-l s re he si n u la f hi o Jude C ha deced t ut i favor of egl heirs o Bhikar n t gr h ha t ld a i he ael h chlenge dt & te or peal b we pplte C i a, te ler applle ut s aie e jgen decre tal or. . 'ae rd coel r rts, th jut : ‘ dece n rors boh he low. Lear oune f t ppelant vemntly gued that e apan «has prvd ecuo f e ded b ikhari b emin dedant ness N2 L i rk f Registrr Office who hs ved t ED1 the a e dd crtifed cy f coy o ii. . ned csl or he al ehe ar th pellt oe the extin o sal e y Bh 'y xaing _ . fen wit o. .B.. Son — cle o a a pro tha x.-, lleged sal ee, is ei op o p f sle d kept in te fce f te gistrar a dee h Ofi o h Re . Bhikhari had fled crvrl surt In which he has alleged that he has not sold 7 ny property to the appellant herein During the pendency of CIVII surt Bhikhari died and his legal. heirs have been brought on record After the .death of Bhikhari burden to prove the fact that Bhikhari has sold the property to the appellant herein who is the alleged beneflcrary of sale deed was on the appellant herein but the appellant herein has not filed original sale deed and has not examined any attesting ,wrtness to prove the aforesaid fact that Bhikhari has executed any sale deed in his favour. ln absence .of such evidence, both the Courts belOw’have, decreed the de datd 9 3 75 h ael herei so caied tht Pho ar td regisd wrll In his favur. Dring he ound tat Bhikri has no so ny property to Banram. T pplant as ald jugmen decree of h trial Cut in'ap efOre the lor aela ourt and by dismssing appel h ow eat Cor ha ffrmd th udmt & e of the ri Cut lhv heard leane uns fo the paie perused e dgmen &.4 re ad ecd of t t Courts be a uit in favour of legal heirs of Bhikhari i.e. respondents No.1 A to herein. . On close scrutiny of evidence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment decree of both the Courts below and i do not find any substantial question of law for the decision of this appeal. Consequently, the appealw is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. s &