HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble ShnDilip Raosaheb Deshmyjdi, J- Appellants Leaal Heirs of the Plaintiff ,i. Respondents Defendants Second Appeal No.93of 2007 1. Sursatia Bai, widow of Late Ram Dulare, aged about 50 years 2. Mani Ram, S/o Late Ram Dulare, aged about 30 years 3. Setram, S/o Late Ram Dulare, aged about 27 years 4. Anant Kumar, S/o Late Ram Dulare, aged 15years, minorthrough itself his mother appellant No.1 5. Ramanuj, S/o Late Ramdular, aged about 11 years, minor, through itself his mother appellant No.1 All are R/o Biharpur, Post & P.S.H. Biharpur, Tahsil - Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) versus 1. Gulab, S/o Mahabir, aged about 60 years 2. Bhola Singh, S/o Gulab, aged about 35 years 3. Panne Singh, S/o Gulab, aged about 28 years 4. Same Lal, S/o Gulab, aged 25 years 5. Mohan Singh, S/o Kailash Singh, aged 25 years 6. Suraj Singh, S/o Kailash Singh, aged 23 years 7. Nohar Singh, S/o Nanhu Singh, aged 35 years 8. Manohar Singh, S/o Nanhu Singh, aged 30 years 9. Dallu Singh, S/o Nanhu Singh, aged 25 years 10. Rang Lal, S/o Mahabir, aged 55 years 11. Jagnarayan, S/o Rang Lat, aged 30 years 12. Jaggu Singh, aged Rang Lal, aged 25 years 13. Rambaran, S/o Gulab, aged 35 years All are R/o Village - Biharpur, P.S. Chandani, Tahsil - Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) 14. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - .s^.. 1 .^" .- ^ ® Collector, Surguja, District Surguja Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code ofdvil Procedure Present: Smt. Meena Shastri, counsel for the appellants. Shri P.R.Patankar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.14. .^^- .-/> ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 27th day ofAugust, 2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-09-2006 passed by the llnd Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.15-A/2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 07-05-2005 passed in Civil Suit No.77- A/2004 by the Civil Judge Class-1, Surajpur, whereby the appellants/plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was dismissed. (3) Both the Courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary and on the basis of admission of deceased Ramdulare recorded a finding that the deceased Ramdulare was not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit and have declined to grant the relief prayed for in the suit. (4) Smt. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that both the Courts below have erred in not exhibiting the true copy of the Khasra Panchshala, which was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and which showed that the deceased Ramdulare was in possession. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs that the abovementioned document, though on -3~ record, was not tendered by the appellanVplaintiff Ramdulare in evidence before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has placed reliance on Thatha vs. Paru and others, AIR1986Kerala196. (5) No other ground was urged by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. (6) Having considered the submissions, I have perused therecord. 1 am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, oral as well as documentary rightly recorded a finding that the deceased Ramdulare was not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit and on such a finding have rightly.declined to grant the relief prayed for in the suit. The case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, being distinguishable, does not help the appellants/plaintiffs in any manner. In my considered opinion, the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, being a pure findingoffact, no question of law arises for determination ofthis appeal. (7) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh i Judge Gopal