T r^' ^ ^^ v ^ HIGH COURT OF CHRAmSOARIi AT BIL^PUR 8BCOND APPBAL N0. 438 OF 3005 APPBLLANT DByBNDANT RB8P011DBMT (81 PLAIWTIFP P&nchuram, S/o Shai Kri|iaram Safaiu^ Aged About 46 Years, R/o VJBage Kumliaxi, P.H.N. -150, Ra. Ni Mandal Navapsaa, Thesil Aaraxig, Distt, Raipur (C,0.), Smt. Saatibai, Wd/o Late J^srtram Simdarlal, S/o Late J^atram Aged Alx>ut 49 years. Surendxa Kumar, S/o Late J^ateaoi Aged About 32 years Sushil Kuamr S/o Latc Jagatram Aged About 29 years Raj Kiunar S/o Late Je^gatraia Aged About 25years Sundari Bai D/o Late Jagatram Aged About 45 years All arc resident <rf Viflage Kumliad, Thesil Aarang, Distfc Raipur (C.G,). 8BCOND APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 100 OF CODB OF CIVEL PROCBDURB. 1908. (SB :Hon*ble Mr«T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Yinay Paadey, Advocate for fhe appeBaiit, None for the respoadente. VBR81I8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ORAL" JODGEMBNT (Passedon 01/09/2^10) By tbis second appeal appeUaat/defeBdant have clxallenged fbe judgment and decree dated 29/7/2005 passed by 12& Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Raipur m Civil Appeal No. 14-A/2004 aflRrming fhe judgment and decree for permaiieixt mjuaictiozi and damages dated 31/1/2002 passed by 4th Ovil J^dge Class-2, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 154-A/2001. Leamed couaisel fi>r the appeUaiit areheaaxi, {& ^^ ^^ 3. Leanied coiinsel for tfae appeUaat submite tbat for consideration of second appeal fhe substaiitial qiiestion oflaw would be that where both the Courts belcw errcd ioi disbeUeviag ffae gift deed e^iecuted by Mansharam in favour offhe prcsent appeUaiat 4, Judgment aad decree ofbofti fhe Courts below aaad reco^d peruaed, 5. As per case of fhe respondeate property werc miccecd^i by tfaem. After deafh of Kriparam thcy came in to possession offlie px^perty but appeBant has tried to mterfere wifb tfae posaessioxi of the rcspondents fhen they filed the suit for peimaixeiit mjunctioii and daaiages, Prcsent appellatit has demed fhe aUegation and has pleaded tfaat property was given to him by unrcgistered gtft deed vide Bx. D-1 on 2/3/75 and he is in possession smce 1975 fhjerefore property was not available for succession afibCT deafh of Maiishaxam to his heirs Kriparain but Court below has not coiisidered this fact 6. The judgment aad decree of Courts below, evideiice of the paxttea reveals fhat afleged gift deed is not a registered documeiit Pteseat appeUaD.t has failed to ppove his possession over (he property oa tikie basis ofsiich imrcgistered iastrumeiit wfaich sliows fhat giftw^®iiot acted upoa. In absence of aforesaid circumstaiices both the Courts were ri^htty decrced fhe suit agabist fhe appeHaiit, I do not fiiid aay substaatial question of law for decisfon of fhis secoiid appesd. Consequeatly, fhis second appeal is Uable to be dismissed cmd is hercby dismissed, 7. Other iaterim appUcations aiie also dismissed, 8, No order as to costs. I ^a/- i T.P. Sharma Judge ^ r