(» ^- LN THE HJGH COURT QFJUDICATURE AT CHATTISGARH BILASPUR C.G. ^A-^o.^Q-^/^ !^'- B.m^ APPELLANTS/ Pi^AJNTIFF Uohn Bilton S/0 Late John Biliam aged 44 years. ,2.Smt. Movii Bilton w/o John Bilton aged 42 years Both r/o M.I.G.-1 502 HUDCQ Amdinagar(Kausaj Nagar) Bhiiai tah and Distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ D^FENDENTS. /., 1 John Britons/o John BiJiam aged 37 yrs 2-Smt. suman wd/oJohn /Biliamaged 63 years Both r/o MIG-1 502 HUDCO ASVSDINAGAR (KaushaJ Nagar) 3.John KSinton s/o John BiSiam /aged 42 years.r/o St.9 Btock 9 Qr.No.6 Hosp'stal Sector Bhiial Tah and distt. Durg C.G. kJohn Newton s/oJohn Biiiam aged 40 years r/oQr.No^17 Biock5 sectorS Bh'ilai Tah &Distt. Durg BhiSai C.G. ^- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 C.P.C. ARSSiNG OUT OF JUDGEMENT AND DECEE DATED 2^11/04 PASSED BY SHRI LAKHAN SiNGH^PlRST ADDITSQNAL DSSTRICT JUDGE DURG IN CIVIL APPEAL N0.^6A/03 VALUED RS.6QO/- ^'Lt ^' XI-HC-78 'STT^T ^T RFTW ^TT3TT^T$h^I<=b HI+ldTSh+llch 3"5T .<l|qid<q, yiTfl^^Ko, fstdlti^i ^-^./?,3.?^/0^. ^200 3TT^Tq^3R'(i{c|i^s<^)£T) ^cTTW ^?cT 3TT^T SECONDAPPEAL John Bliton and another John Briton and oth.ers 4.10,2006: Shri'Arjun Yadav counsel Shri Akhil Agrawal pane! i Heard on the question of £|dmisslonand perused the matsri'a! avaiiabte on record. The appeilants have pref€|r Code •of Civii Procedure 20.11.2004 passed by the Addi| No. 6-A/2003 whereby the appe| judgrnent and decree dated;12^ Ourg inCJvlS Suit No.79-A/2001| been dlsmsssed and the judgme|it aifirmed. Briefly stated the cs.se o Court was that they are son 'whereas respondents 3 and 4 father'of the appeiiant No.1 however before he could occi| <=ni^[cn41-i w^rf ^ te^t ^R^K ^3:rf^q'3TT^T INO. 305 OF 2006 Vs. Appei!ants Respondents. brthe appeSIants. iwyer for the respondent/State. rred this appeal under section 100 ofthe inst the judgment and decree dated ionaE Dlstrict Judge Durg in Civi! Appeal preferred by the appeilants agalnst the i.2003 passed by 8th Civii "Judge C!ass !1 dismissing the suit of the appelfants has and .decree of ths triai Court has been the appeliants/plaintiffs before the Trial md daughter-in-iaw of respondent No.2 are the sons of respondent No.2. The md purchased a house from HUDCO, py the house in question he died. It Is XI-HC-78 ^W^TT^HT^ 3:^T^TraT?PT, ^Tfl<MJI(o, (^^ll^y .M^.<9^P.^. -2. ^200 STT^T'CT^? (y<I^d^'2T) ^TT^T^T^icb c^TT3TR??T$hHI<=t) .^^ ^cTTW ^f?cT ^TT^T furthsrthe case of the piaintiffs th suit house and the remaining portl and 2. The respondents as-e t^ji purpose they are creatlng nuisar father, the appeiiants have also house In question was a'iiotted.. happened to be the emptoyee of t ai! of them are in possession of tl Ex, P-1 and with these pleadings and 3 have no right to interfere ^ nor hav^ they any right to. evict tl Injunctlon to the effect that they was aiso prayed for. Defendants that defendant No.2 is t'ne empio^ .had purchased the suit house wl year 1995 and-she permjtted th< were paysng Rs. 300/- per mo thereafter, they stopped making p the.suit house by practicing fraud, the defendants 3 and 4 is to the ek properties of their father stood pa sons and wjfe and since then'th^ the allegation of Interference in th^ On the basis of the p!eadir .framed and recording the s1 <=hl^f<n41-1 TTTRoff ^ te^.^TCTT ^3Tf^T3:TT^T ^t they are occupying haif portion of the [3n is in possession of the respondents 1 fig to evict the appellants and for that lce. Since the house belonged to their |got the equal share in the same. The |in the name of thelr father since he fie Bhiiai Steet Plant and after hls death l(ie same as per the. mutuai compromise |a re!ief of declaration that defendants 2 ^jth their possession ovsr the sult house |em was prayed. fo.r. Reiief of perpetual |)e restrained from causing Interference |1 and 2 in their statements have stated tee of Bhiiaj Stee! PIant and In fact she tich was constructed by HUDCO In the ^ pialntiffs to reside with her. Plaintlffs ^th for a period. of 2-3. months and ^ayment and they are lliegaSly occupying The written statement fiied on behaif of ffect that a!i the movable and Immovabie ilrtitloned during hls lifetime amongst the |y are residlng separateiy.. They denied possession ofths piaintiffs. i|gs of the t'espectlye parties issues were itatements of the wltnesses on behaif of XI-HC-78 *<l*«<Trsb*TT^> 3^T ^i^icn^, ^Tn^i^, t®t<ni<i^< , ^.^.Sos'/o^ ^200 3TT^?T ^^cb (y;ii^<q^) W^T^T^Jct) cTSTT3TT^T5h^icb ^^^lNli^-' ^cTT^H: ^Tf^T 3TI^T the parties-the suit was dismlsse|d pjalntiffs have failed to prove th^t father though it was heid that th^ the suit house. !t v»/asfurther he!|d establish that the defendants accordlngly, the suit was 'disj appeilants/p!aintiffs has been fi| accommodation in question stil! 4 Piant and as the same has not entitled for a re!ief of dedaratioi] mother and with this finding the r| held.to be correctly rejected by| dismissed. record. He further submits that that even the defendants 3 and questlon is the property of their equa! share in -the said prop chl^f^l41T1 W:Toff ^ te^t <f^<-dl< ^3:rf^T3:n^rr by the tria! Court with a finding that the the house In question beionged to thelr defendants are residing in half portlon of ^S that the piaintiffs have not been able to are trying to evict the . piaintiffs and ^iissed. The appeal preferred by the |rther dismissed mth a finding that the lontinues to be the property of Bhiiai Steei been transferred, the piaintiffs are not ^ on th.e ground-of titie of thelr father or ^!ief of perpetua! injunction has aiso been |the trial Court and the has Learned counsei for the a^peliants submits that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse ^nd contrar^ to the materia! avaiiable on |the Courts beiow hEive jgnored this fact |4 have not disputed that the property in father and therefore, a!I the brothers had ^rty. Document of Ex. P-1 being the agreement betweenthe parties t|3 the suit has not been considered soieiy }s to the said agreement have not bsen f the document are not disputed and the pent -No.2 with respect to .h-er signature t.rison from her admitted signature and on the ground that the witness^j examined though the contents o] denial of the defendant/responcj couid be ascertained by compl XI-HC-78 3:^':^TFn^W, yiTn'yli<o, i®ldiyl|,< ^_ ^.^.s&rfo^ ^l+ldl Sh+lich ***»»*» *«*»<<*>*»•«« * ^- 200 3TT^?Tq^'^ (H^^^) - c, ~ 3TT^T^rR^J4) cT8TT3TT^T$hH|ch ?^TTW ^f?cf 3T1^?T therefore, a. substantial questior| adjudication ofthls appeai: "1. Whether the courts decidlng the owners.tl chi^f^i41-< iTN^rf if te^ <r^<-<ii< ^^ri^TW^T of !aw mentioned beiow arises for 2. Whether the appellai|its after partition of father's property i.e. -house, resicie therein? 3, Whether the findings| plaintiffs have failed to prove tha| property. The above findlng is ba^ parties and since the property' s| Plant, the findings of the Courts| f^l'avour of the plaintiffs that they h .respondents 1 and 2 do not have |iave committed iliegallty in' |jp of house in question? in question is entitled to are pen/erse?" The /Courts beiow have c^tegoricaily recorded a finding that the their.father was the owner of the suit t>ed on the documents fiied by both the |iii stands in the name of Bhiiai Steel below that the deciaratory decree in ^d a right to continue in possesslon of the property in questlon and furth^r that they have right to deciaration that ^ny right to evict them, has rightiy been refused. Reiief of perpetuai injurtction has a!so been deciined on the ground that the pialntiffs have faii^d to estabiish that the defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs fr|om the suit accommodation. •The above finding is a fjndli Courts beiow by recording a co.r ^g of fact. Thus keeping in vlewthat the lcurrent finding that the p'aintiffs have faiied to prove the titie of their fatjier and further that the defendants are disturbing their possession over fr|e suit'house and dlsmissed the suit, no r XI-HC-78 +11^^T»»*l|ch 7ST ^ll^M^, ^9Tfl<1^<o, f®t<rll^^< _' SA ZD^-IO^ ^200 {?T M ?l<»> (yii^ct^T) W^T^rf^TT^ cTSTT 3TT^T ^TF^ -</ ^ INtN^W' ^RTTW ^rf?cT 3TT^T substantial question of !aw as {: mentioned above arise for adju' in the result, the appea! to be dismissed and it |s accc itseif. cbi^fd41-i nm^ff^'te^'^^K ^3:rf^T3TT^T |roposed by the counsel for the appe!!ants fclicationofthisappeai. Ihas no substance and therefore it is iiabie |rding!y dismsssed at the admission stage Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge H ^ P.T.O. ^iv < m