^ ^ol^ 2N ®HEH333H GCXJRT OF JUBlCASURE AT BZLASPUR (C.Q.) Second Appeal NO» fff ©f2003 C Memorandiam of second Appeal U/S 100 of C.P.e, ) APPBLLANTS ©EFENDANTS </•-.. ^ ^^ ^' .- ^» Bipafe Rara S/o Jahawal age<3 about 35 yearse B» Madho^am S/Q Jahawal age<3 25 ysars. / ^ z' J3» smt. ^asaoi Bai Nfi/o Jahawal aged 60 years. All by occupation agricultu- -rist^ resideat o£ village Ranbodh, Tehsil Banetara Bistrict Barciy • /©• Bhg^a Bai wife of ^iilesar aged 27 years^ occupation agricylturist,resident of Village Murla,%hsil Bemetara ©istrietDurg (QG). 2. >3hamna S/o Rdop Rai age<3 50 years, oeeapation eultivation resideat of village Ranbodh, Tehsil Bemetara ©istriefeBura, 3A» TiBejan sai wd/o Latel aged 70 years^ j3tf Bongrha S/o Latel Ram aged 35 years^ Both resident ot village Ranbodh,i®hsllNawagarh Bistrict Burg • ^£AMTJCTS- ^ ^ ^ ^A. B. Versus aiojram S/Q Sadha Ram^ occupatlon caltivation^ r/o Village AnBhiyarkhor , Tehsil Mungeli District Bilaspur. Nar©shs/o Manrakhan age<3 55 years, Mahesh Ram S/o Manrakhan aged 50 years^ Both by occapation agricul- -turist, resldent of Ranb&dh tehsil Nawagarh Bistrict D.irg< The State of Madhya Eradesh Now Ctihattisgarh^ "through the Oollectoir^ Durg (GG)< -•--^ 'S ^f 8 s 02 11 MEMORANDUM OI* SECONJ3 APPEAL UNDER SECTIOT 100 OF C.P.C. ^^^^^^^^ XI-HC-78 f <T' TTTR^TT ?>*1|ch ^oET ^|q|<^<q, ^T{l^JI(o, R«r11<M^< . s.^ ^^ /u ^ 2003 ^|I^IM^cb(<ic<^s<^) 3TI^TcF)T^i^ TOTW^T5h^lch i^:cTT^K^cT3:n^T chi^Id41-i ^i^dT^te^i^^K ^)3:rf^TW^T ^ 23/02/2007 Shri H.S. Patel, counse|l Shri Akhil Agraw^ State/respondent No. ^. Heard on admission. The appellants are dated 11.10.2002 passed whereby the judgment and Civil Judge, Class-II, Bemetasl-a affirmed. Brief facts are that Bl filed a Civil Suit No. 68-A/19|8< of three sale deeds purportijj father Sadhu Ram in favouj 9.4.1966 on the ground 22.2.1965. It was pleaded th^ the above mentioned sale minor and that he had knowl sale deeds by the defendant intheyear 1979. Learned Civil Judge^ appreciation of evidence oral| entries in the copy of Pauti finding of fact that Sadhu therefore, could not have ex< deedson 9.4.1966. Italso not barred by limitation. for the appellants, Panel Lawyer for the agg^ieved by the judgment and decree |n Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2002 djecree dated 24.12.1981 passed by in Civil Suit No. 68-A/1980 was thlat deleds lojram-respondent No. 1/plamtiff on 29.1t.l979 for cancellation (ig to have been executed by his of defendanta No< 2 and 3 on Sadhu Ram had expired on |it on 9*4.1966 i.e. the execution of sjed^ the plaintiff Bhojram was a l^dge of the execution of the above oollusion with one Jhanglu only Class-II^ Bemetara on proper |as well as documentary i.e. the (register of death) reeorded a ^am had expired on 22.2.1965, tcuted the above mentioned sale a finding that the suit was rerfister re^orded XI-HC-78 ^i 73f ^ww^, ^w\<»,P^^wy. s ft-. ^-- l^ ^1*4^11 ^tTTch W[ 200Z OT^T^Tf^-TW ^TTW^T9b^lch ^ Kvr ^ll^t'4^ch('idl^<<^) ^Rn-w^rfNw^T —5, ^^rfe^f WT^ff ^te^ <(^^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T Aggrieved by the jud^inent and decree, the appellants preferred Pirst Appeal. Leai|ned AppeUate Gourt also affirmed the finding of fact reeorded b\ Bemetara regardmg death ol proper appreciation of evidei ^ the learned CivilJudge, Class-H, Sadhu Ram on 22.2.1965. On ^, it also recorded a finding that the plaintiff was a minor on the date of exe^ution of the above mentioned sale deedsand le4rnt about their execution only in the year 1979 i.e. the year in -^hich the suit was filed. On these premises, it recorded a finjding that the suit was witNn Umitation. In view of the concurre4t finding of faot recorded by both the Courts below that Sadfau) Ram had expired on 22.2.1965 and could not have executed t^e above mentioned sale deeds on 9.4.1966 and that the suit was| not barred by limitatioa is based on proper appreciation of evid^nce oral as well as doeumentary, no substantial question of Iaw| result, this Second Appeal admission, In view of above, M.(C)| interim relief and I.A. No. 41: also staxid dismissed. No order as t6 costs. | Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge is involved in this appeal. As a is disCTissed at the stage of P. No. 2200/2006 for grant of ^7/2006 for out of tum hearing P.T.O. ^ 'e^ ^