.,.. >*"« HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No.128 of 2004 /V .•:.it^...-^SII Girijabai alias Radhabai (dead) through her legal representatives Ganeshram and another versus Anil Kumar and others ^;':IUs?s".lyNsl^ ORDER Postforl%-01-2010 Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra Appellants Respondents Second Appeal No.128 of 2004 versus Girijabai alias Radhabai (dead) through her lega! representatives Ganeshram and another Anil Kumar and others Present: Shri Rajendra Patel, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Sareena Khan, counsel for respondent No.1. None appears for other respondents. gs.i1."^ 'E^am.w^ Second Appea! under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure ORDER (Passed on J^KJanuary, 2010) The present second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs challenging the concurrent findings and judgment and decree dated 29-7-2003 and dated 16-12-2000 passed by the Courts below in Civil Appeal No.136-A/2002 and Civil Suit No.4- A/1988 respectively, whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaring the sale- deed dated 30-7-1984 as null and void, for possession and for seeking damages of Rs.8,000/- has been dismissed by the Courts below. 2. Original plaintiff Girijabai preferred the suit on 5-2-1988 with respect to the suit property situated at Salhewar Para, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, more properly shown and covered within the area A, B, C, D in the map attached with the plaint. The original plaintiff prayed for a decree that the sale-deed dated 30-7-1984 executed ,<-<s::" ,<.F ^^; "%. 'l ^^aast .,.- ^ -2.- defendants No.2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.1 be declared null and void, she be handed over vacanf possession of the land and the defendants be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards damages. 3. The case of the original plaintiff in the Courts below was that she was the sole issue/legal heir of deceased Jagtu Teli in whose name the suit property was recorded and that after the deathof her father Jagtu Teli, her name was duly recorded in the municipal records, however, later on, the defendants Samaru, Sukalu, Babulal and Kartik, in collusion with some lawyers, got their names recorded in the municipal records without notice to the original plaintiff Girijabai. The defendant No.1 as well as the other defendants pleaded that the plaintiff Girijabai is not the daughter of Jagtu Teli and that Jagtu Teli and Jagatram were real brothers. Jagatram left behind him his widow Dasoda alias Dasribai and sons Samaru, Sukalu, Babulal and Kartik, who lived in joint family, their names were recordedjn the municipal records and lease (Patta) was granted in their favour on 2-8-1979 and since thereafter they are in possession of the property. After death of Dasribai, the property was sold to the defendant No.1. It was also stated that the original plaintiffs name is Radhabai and not Girijabai and that she is not the daughter of Jagtu Teli. 4. The tria! Court, on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the suit after recording the finding that the original plaintiff is not the daughter of the deceased Jagtu Teli and that her name was never recorded in the municipal records and that the sale-deed dated 30-7-1984 is •binding on her. •'<ate"^..il^|..^:.' ^F'^ ^?r-^{SS'^!'^'?'^S'^'S'"f:s^- /• .<-"». 'l "Bp»''::'~'l 1 •\ ^^/ •i,,!IU!-!S-S!a 5. The first appellate Court has also examined the evidence in detail in its judgment from paragraphs 11 to 20 and has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that the original plaintiff Girijabai was not the daughter of Jagtu Teli and that the trial Court has not committed any error while recording the said finding. The findingthat the original plaintiff Girijabai is not the daughter of Jagtu Teli, who was in fact issueless, is a pure finding of fact. Since the entire contrQversy revolves around this fact,whteh is a concurrent finding of fact and which is neither perverse nor has been arrived at by misreading of evidence, there being no substantial question oflaw in this appeal, the present second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. ——-- r /~' Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge M-|!l^'li>t;":ll'f!i ^^1 S.. '^=v^S.. Si^asMss&S..