;&-. •—., ^c^ ( ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) Second Appeal No.260 of 2011 1. Parmeshwar Prasad, Aged 53 years, S/o Late Falitram R/o Village Mohgaon, Tashil Pandaria, District Kabirdham 2. Chhaili Bai, W/o Shri Baldeo Chandravanshi, D/o Late Falitram, Aged 48 years, R/o village Jhirauni, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) 3. Kusum Bai, W/o Nand Kumar Chandravanshi, D/o Late Falitram, Aged 45 years, R/o village Jhirauni, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) 4. Aruna Bai, W/o Suresh Chandravanshi, D/o Late Falitram, Aged 42 years, R/o village Mohtara, Thana Pandatarai, District Kabirdham (CG) 5. Kamlesh Bai, W/o Kedar Chandravanshi, D/o Late Falitram, Aged 38 years, R/o village Dongaria, Thana Pandatari, District Kabirdham (CG) Versus 1. Komal, Aged 40 years, S/o Laxman Chgndravanshi, R/o village Mohgaon, Thana Kunda, District Kabirdham (CG) Omprakash (died), Since deceased through LRs 2 'a' to 2 'e' 2.a. Shail Bai, Aged 31 years, Wd/o Late Omprakash. 2.b. Kumari Niteshwari, Aged 14 years, D/o Late Omprakash. 2.c. Keshav, Aged 13 years, S/o Late Omprakash. 2.d. Akanksha, Aged 7 years, D/o Late Omprakash. 2.e. Ku. Monti, Aged 9 years, S/o Late Omprakash. No.2.a. to 2.e. are minor, represented by the mother Shail Bai, Wd/o Late Omprakash, R/o Mohgaon, Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdharo (CG). •L•;.*-."^^•s^-^^^- 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through tti Collector, Kabirdham (CG) 4. Radhelal Chandravanshi, S/o Late Falitram Chandravanshi, Aged 55 years, R/o Village Mohgaon, Tah. Pandaria, District Kabirdham (CG) {Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, counsel forthe appellants. Mr. Akhil Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3, on advance copy. SmgleBenchLHon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGWIENT (18-8-2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree of dismissal of appeal, dated 28-3-2011 passed by the District Judge, Kabirdham, in Civil Appeal No.15A/2009 against the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit for declaration and injunction filed by Late Falitram, original plaintiff, dated 17-7-2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Pandaria in Civil Suit No.33A/2007. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. 3. As per copies of the judgment & decree of both the Courts below, original plaintiff Falitram i.e. predecessor-in-title of the appellants herein & respondent No.4 herein Radhelal Chandravanshi, has filed civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the land bearing Khasra No.679/2 Ka, area 0.18 acre in which he was running a saw mill. By filing counter claim the defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff and have alleged that they are also having 1/3 interest over the said saw mill. Affer providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court has dismissed the suit and the counter claim, and held that the land is joint family property of both the parties and the defendants have ^ -^ ^ \. ^ filed to prove their 1/3'" interest over the said saw mill installed on the aforesaid land, same was challenged in appeal before the lower •il^l^BH^^^B 'a Soma appellate court and the lower appellate court by dismissing the appeal has affirmed the judgment & decree ofthe trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellantssubmits that the presumptionofjoint family is not sufficient to presume the property in question is also the joint family property and, therefore, in the present case, the substantial question of law would be whether the saw mill being run by the appellants herein is the joint family property or not. 5. Without any further comment, in the light of finding of the trial Court in para 18 of its judgment, especially on the basis of counter claim which has not been proved by the defendants, 1 do not find any substantial question of law for the decision of this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. 6. I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- P.P. Sharm; R. IJi