i; •f ^ SCSU t^ Plaintiffe COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Second Aopeai No.458 of2S84 1. Karam Singh, Aged about 35 years, S/o Gahud, 2. Siyaram, Aged about 30 years S/o Gahud 3. Mst.Radhabai, aged about 70 years W/o Gahud Ail by casate Kewat, By occupation Agriculturist, R/o Rafanpali, Thana SakSI, Tahsii SakSi, Distt.Janjgir Champa Versus tespondents Ss 3. 4. i'Second A iuUI iU ?l Mst.Ghasnain 3ai, Aged about 50 years, W/oNot Known R/e Ratanpali Tahsii Sakti At present Ward No.5, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa Karmin Bai Aged about 45 years W/o Sukul Dharmln Bai aged about 40 years W/oAsharsm Sukul aged about 48 years, Si'o Noi Known, Husband of Karmin Bai, Ai! R/o Ratanpali, Tahsi! Saktl Distt. Janjgir Champa under Sectlon 100 ofthe CPC) Present:- Mr.Parag Kotecha, counsei forthe appellants. (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.] ORAL ORDER (9.11-2010) 3y this second appea!, the appeiiants have chalienged the iegality and property of the judgment and decree datsd 23.6.2004 passed] py the Additionai District Judge, Sakti, tn Civit Appeai No.13-A/2003,dismissing civii appeal against the judgment and decree of dismissa! of sUit! dated 27.6.2003 passed by the Civil Judge Ciass-i, Sakti, in G!^!|; Su|t No.181-A/-02 whereby sult for possession fiied on behatf ofthe appe!iarrt$ wasdismissed. y ?t&; 2-- 1 have heard iearned counsel for the appeliants, pen-ised the jud^mep-E^nd decree impugned and records of the Courts belo'A'. Learned counsel for the appeilants submits ihat the present appellants have purchased the property from one 3ouna and obfained possession. Thereafter the land was given to the respondenfs for their residence, but they do not return the possession back to the appeilants, therefore, they hsve flled civll suit for possession. The preseni respondents have not claimed the rlyht or titie over the property, but ths Courts below have dtsmissed fhe sult as wei! as the appeai of the appellants subsiantiaily on ihe ground that without demarca$ion, any decree on the basisof claim of t'ne appeliants wouid not be possible. In these circumstances, substantial question of iaw for determination of the appeal wouid be ihat whether the iower appeilate Court was justified in dlsmissing the appeai without providing opportunity of demarcation ofthe iand. 4. As per pleadings and evidence of the parties, fte present appeiiants have purchased ihe iand from Bouna. Present respondents are heirs of Bouna and Banmaii. As per thelr case, thsy are in possession of the property in dispute during iifetime of Bouna. This fact has been admitted by the piaintiffs witness No.2 iViangiu that Banmaii was in possession of the property during lifetime of Bouna and after hte death, Karmin isin possessioR of the property. It shows that the respondents are continuing in possession over the property since it inception on the basis of owner as fhey have recelved the property on succession. = ! f-f. Iin these circumstances, both the Courts beiow have rightly dismissed fhe sult as weil as the appeal of ths appeiiants. The Courts betow have not commitSed any illegality. However, as per documenta"/ evldence, the appeiiants are Bhumiswaml of the iand shown in the pialnt. In case any daim, they m3y file appropriate appiication In terms of Sectlon 250 of ?he C.G. Land RevenusCode, 1959. | 6. Consequentiy, i do not find any substanSiai qusstion of iav/ in this app^al. Ths appeai is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, a{| the admission stage liseif. Sd/-..,Bi; T. P. Sharma Judge