Appellant / @aintiff éeféndants VERSUS Second Appea'! No. E / 2005 SINGLE BENOHE Mgr»- {73, LA Respondents/ (1. 2 . 3. V SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR / Sukhiram, S/o Paharuram Aged About 42 Yrs, R/o Vill. Mudapar, Teh‘ Palaari, Distt. Raipur State of Chhattisgarh, Through, Collector, Raipur Additional Tehasildar, Palaari, Distt. Raipur Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Mudapaar, Teh. Palaari, Distt. Raipur 31 x - XI—HC»22 ~ £3? @2 2005 hi‘' Raja irm ol 0 i p. ,Sh vgrawai $t.‘ rd on admissxo Si Shaa cmaa $? he apeHam n anjegA P L farihe ate mar n T pr h prefrr ts Second p! r Sctior 10 ' hn apehaw aw ee i hx Apea mde e 0 as h s far e a un an atematwe V e a$ d y Civxl Jug de Chas 3 i Bada lo Barar aw the apna! e prefewed ivy the wpp Hgni‘ h as alo s b: ee“ dssmmsed by t'w ipe mugnd ‘umen’r dg ad w decree se 0? te pl‘ b h frial ' as tbw landiese c‘: Ada 3 Ba ed a pe fe dated to th eila r he 3 e f en’tructmg a efehden No1 did t fi my writ iment H dfehcanf No > m “Mn et‘tmnn as Jted t the p ecred po Ge hd e ot ess and ,he ac w move h {eehue aes a per erdei ted 8/1/2 psed R u a No 3 1 e lam“ m g o as ex/e ge n t t pi n heefeye the ' questi f caeh e tase d net ei‘ie. he i‘i {d is mibed‘ee a e wate n he re . ors trfoy th couid he? ‘b‘ted ’shead is J 1 [w w ne d vons gn 237(2; rte a leer prom o: eeto of tha CPF‘ te u’t pr etu! xmcuon d m *ha a I re s3s§an w digmIgSe b *n mh 1 *wd hg ate{ ce e n 2/1 1/?001 n n b as o the ab cedqc' OW've eon‘hs he ha eepreher‘eion *haT th #‘enhe e dl Ca h amtff ezom te Cou’t w he i person m be mtiori Tahsd .ar a‘oda az: .sw h/O?’1¢i83 e amet on ‘ mam nd un ? ie au wded +i”e e rning a hme Lwev rihe revenue *heri*ies mema e 1 ad o the f eve o Fevenue , eihe d e efdai sh“ peswso h fr t pree n heref ae e eypmeas m nm he suat pfhl ad {ore ihe bw “It fr e in; nchon has be fild en e Dt no le ten eate owever / e“ ’ the e et h et hat !amtlff h hoeeh un the vemmert !a and demg h he! bvsm t encmhment ee :ed oy te w thoyme e a 01901 as m e ere Pse 7 P11998 Th t stxn w hs ivn o 1 aee a he emu‘f ad ir on o ncn’g th e 1 e T su an dee led undr r i t eveue r cd and'heee e eeme eeno‘t enieet1n dév XI-HC-22 mm %C\Q{~v\%’i g‘l/ W / 7 WWW1§WW r éamm v / of the: Code and thy {arid cam ‘éhe Land 1% was a!5o objected thc and it daes mt bear the rev denied the averments of the pl granted in ithe name of the plan parties, issues wefe ffamed ar‘ ‘ rews'dmg a finding that ihe Ma} suit woperty or’his fegal posses it was heiki that he is 1‘1o’ientitle EX.P.1 wae though he¥d that it‘ fv'rther he'zd fha‘t it was hot meferred ah appea‘ against t dtsmissed Learned ceuhsel for €he appeilaht vehemently argues that the the! Court has held the documeh of EvD 4 Pam a~ nel‘ther ferged he' fabricated ahd even then the ell has heed Clsmlesed With a fmc’lhg lha *he peb‘a ls net m accordance wrth lew 1t ls argued that st r net span re the CiVll Couf to go mte the fa ttl‘mt waether the part1 purportedly ‘3 ued by the Taherldar has been val ly Issued by nun Or ce lt was he d thet the document ls neither ferged nor fabrreeted, the same could not he brushed ‘ aside by holding that it ie not n accordance with law es; the same is not Within the purview of the Civil Coutt and therefore it is argued. that the feliowing substantial qeeetion o iaw arises for adjddicetion of thie eppeei: e aliatted onty after fixing the'pa’émium of ‘2 the docw‘nems are mged and fabncatea % anue ca$h numbea Defendant N93 a1s0 aihtiff and pln’aded that th$ patta was hAver Hfn‘f 0h the eaas of pieaduwe cf respective j leamed +ha% Ccuri dismseed the em: afte¥ nt5ff hae faiied to prove hrs, OWheiehip of'éhe §sieh ever the euit property and accordihgw ‘d for perpetuai injunciiOh. The document of ivas not fabricated or foroed bdt it‘hes been. n accordance With iew The eppelienl i t above judgment end the same has been a “Whether the Cr‘w'l , eurte heye’ the jnlziedt’erien t go behind <e I ga! inetrument conferrin i v ’ {View h , r f r ‘ V a g" XHC I—-22 EWWW ' .........g.;.....m.g.....\$1 £11 WW mm ......... .......W .......... ammeiwm r $amam > ,- bhnomiswami rig! ‘dercidfa E3 lagalig fsiioiNed far com‘ whea #m. §egai ins dewmem and (m 2’ a'i-‘wged dowmem l have heard iearned cc . The gai'nmf has fiied +k his dam on documem of Ex} conéeméd Tahsilér. Bath me i Ex-Wi has nqt been i‘swed h ac'cerdanca with'Iaw This finding-g hasw ‘ on' the documemtafy 'a‘ad submissW} <)f the 'caunse! f0 ‘ 'traverseci beydmd the iuriSdm bee issued in gcéordawce Wm the piaintif‘fs was 0n the dam Jby adéucihg cogent evident: competar‘i mithoriw afker fo‘! revenue Sew“? and emce he ‘ the sugt hae been daemissed. substantia! quee‘tien of law ar prepoeed by the appellaht dEsmseed at‘t'he admiseion’et yts (Ex.nP/?‘} ‘rb" eiwuire agd am? prepriety a? gmcedwe em‘wg such fights aspen-aw . tmmem camer’ned i9? a pgbiic awe if bee beezy fwndfe he my? and hat cancefs‘ed aelper {awT’ mse! f0? the a peuam e mscavxt guit for peveetuai mjmcmn 935W; ’n bemg a patta ggarfued m hue ‘aqeua by me Zourts bekgw héve held theft ihe documehi of éra! ev'cerce evailebie 70h reco'Vd The the appeheht Lhat the Cows betcw have 10h whHe haidmg haL the documemt has no: 1 law canhot be aceepted. Smce the ease 9f mentf of Exp/1, he was requ§red to estabhsh 3 tha’il the Same was veiichy issued by the, mihg‘ the precedurelpreecribed in the lane: sé fai%ed t9 eetebhsh‘ 'khe eame by evidehce, 3h‘the basis of the aforesaid dieeueeiene he eeohe appea! as x i see fat adiudiceheh af i‘hie e ehd the e‘epea! is witheu‘: any meri‘a, is age Sdk- Dhirendra ,Mishra Judge [1%éfae i 4