iw%. w ^35 'y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) Second Appeal No.390 of 2005 1. Parasram Satnami, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Ledga Satnami, RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 2. 3. 4 5. 8. 2. 3. 4. Mohna Satnami, aged about 28 years, Sohan Ram Satnami, aged about 26 years. Minor Johan Satnami, aged about 16 years, Minor Thakur Satnami.aged about 12 years. (S.No.2 to 5 sons of Paras Ram Satnami, S.No.4 to 5 Minors through natural guardian father Shri Paras Ram Satnami) All R/o Village Kodapara, Tahsil Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Smt. Bhagwantin Satnami,W/o Dilip Satnami, R/0 Village Khandwa, Via Uparwara, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Smt. Ganga Satnami, W/o Shanker Singh Satnami, R/o Nawagaon, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG) Smt. Sahuna Satnami, W/o Devlal, R/o Village Motipur, Thana Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) Smt. Ramkunwar Satnami, W/o Rohit, R/o Village Bhelwadih, Tahsil Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus Bhagela Satnami, aged about 69 years, S/o Shri Chherku Satnami, R/o Saatpar, Tahsil, Distt. Raipur (CG) Smt. Toran, W/o Bhaghela Satnami, aged about 43 years. Dave, S/o Bhagela Satnami, aged about 26 years. Smt. Mangtin Bai, Wd/o Chherku Satnami. (SI.No.2 to 4 R/o Village Saatpar, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur (CG) 5t ^^^Ms^^^ y?^^^ {Second appeal underSection 100ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mrs. Renu Kochar, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.5. SinflleBench: Hon'ble IVIr. T.P. Sharma, J ORALORDER (20-7-2009) 1. This is second appeal against the judgment & decree dated 7-5-2005 passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.24- A/2002 affirming the judgment & decree dated 30-1-2001 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-11, Raipur in Civil Suit No.30-A/1998, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-11 has dismissed the civil suit filed on behalf of the appellants for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of contract. 2. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment & decree as also the judgment & decree of trial Court and record of the Courts below. 3. Suit before theCivil Judge was based on oral agreement of sale which was not accepted by the Civil Judge and the same was affirmed in the civil appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants sybmits that although the Courts below have not accepted the claim of the present appellants, but the present appellants had entered into agreement withone Cherku Satnami, predecessor of respondents No.1 to 4and the present appellants are in possession ofthe suit property. 5. Learned Courts below after taking into consideration the evidence adduced on' behalf of the parties and in absence of any written agreement or document of transfer of title arrived at a finding thatthe presentappellants have not entered into any agreement with Cherku Satnami for saleof land, therefore, respondents No.1 to 4 were not under obligation to perform any part of contract. Findings of the Courts below are based on the evidence adduced on behalf ofthe parties. Burden to prove the agreementwas on the appellants, but the appellants have not discharged their burden. Learned Courts below have rightly ,^ '•-ti^S^ Soma dismissed the suit and the appeal. 1 do not find any substantial question of law for decisioh of this appeal. 6. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ~— Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge °)?^