Pa<?8 Mo BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.-^fc OF 2006 APPELLANT ^LAINTIFF ^ i<ifi" !•<- ^s'^iwt ...-•s •^- RESPONDENTS : /'-DEFENDANTS nO' 1. Ankalu Son of Late Suklal; aged about 60 years; Farmer and resident of Village Kubradeeh; Post Chichola; Tahsil and Distnct Rajnandgaon (C.G.). VERSUS Govind Son of Late Suklal; aged about 65 years; Rajau Son of Late Dularu Satnami; aged about 50 years; Both resident of Village Raanitalab, P.H. N0. 38; Post Chichola; Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). Puniya Bai Wife of Late Siyaram; aged about 50 years; Farmer and resident of Village Kubradeeh; Post Chichola; Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh; Through: The Collector; Rajnandgaon (C.G.). SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 1908 XI-HC-78 *11*1dl Sh<<|ch 3^'^TPTRW, ®Tfly'IS,!s|<v)l'My< '^A..2.ii./.OG.. ^; 317^?T(rg317 (^o^ci^iT) sn^rqirf^TR? rmTsn^raiiiti gT<iTWHf%(T3n^r w Shri R.N. Jha, iearned counsj Heard on the questiQn of adnli juddment tKe The appellant has preferred| Civi! Procedure against the jud^r passed by District Judge Rajnantpi She appeal preferred by the appe| 27/12/2004 passed by the leamecf dismissed. AppelianVplaintiff filed a. cit executed by the defendant No.1 upon him, and for perpetual injunl; courts bsiow with a finding that be the ancestral property and as ^! such property and accordingly thj and with a further finding that the j^l Learned counsel for the app^ arrivec! at the conclusion that thel question was ancestral property of'a'efendant No.1 by !ate Sukial. P/3 being the sale deeds executeip deed executed by Suklal dated 8|' 31/1/64 executed by Suklai in fa\ executed by Sukia! in favour of Shf ?>rafeNt;r WTCfl'ff te^t K^RZTC ^3l1^q'3IT^T ^l for the ission. this second appeal U/s 100 of the Code of and decree dated 30/3/2006 passed Igaon in civil appeal No. 1-A/2005 by which lant against the judgment and decree dated Civi! Judge Class-! Rajnandgaon has been te kil suit for deciaration that the sale deed |in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding btion which has been ctismissed by both the piaintiff has fai!ed to prove the suit land to iucb the plaintiff has not proved his title over sale deed in question is'binding upon him laintiff is not in possession ofthe suit land. lilant submits that both the courts beiow have plaintiff has faiied to prove that the iand in though the same was purchased in the name ;?eferring to the documents of Ex. P/1, P/2 & i in favour of Govindram on.20/5/1963, sale •W64 in favour of Chamru, sa!e deed dated our of Bhagoli and sale deed dated 31/1/64 Iram; it is argued that a bare perusal of these vtou XI-HC-78 ^l+ldl $h*llch T5T '^Wlvtt, S-^W\6, Rldiy^ -$'.-d:.^.(/.?.A. ^ ^T 311^1 Mach (y<(^ct^'Er) an^r^irf^TRT tRT -ffl^T st)li°h STdRRfff^rsn^T •z 4il*lfd-sft;)'tll^clT if fe^ <Rl<T<il1: ^sri^Tan^T documents goes to show that to re| against the sale deed of Ex. P/1J Suklal and this aspect has not beeifl It is further subrriitted the the defendant No. 1 Govindram personai earnings and that Govi deposition before the courts belovj substantial questions of !aw arise f<| A. Whether; in the and decree of Learned Judd the judgment and decree of suit !and to bs self acquire^ whereas separate earning or not been established bv docus B. Whether; in She and decree of Learned Judg^ the suit land to be self acqu| "NUCLEAUS" i.e. patemal p| transferred later to pay th| purchase of suit land? I have heard learned counsel [say the outstanding amount of consideration P/2 & P/3 were subsequently executed by considered by both the courts below. def^ndants have not been abie to establish that tsurchased the land in question out of his incjram has categorically denied this fact in his ji and thus it is submitted that the foliowing |r adjudication ofthis appeal. facts and cireumstances; the judgment je of First Appellant Court; confirming L|earned Court Trial Court declaring the land of defendant No.1 is justified ^eif acquisltion by defendant No.1 has jnentan,' or orai evidence.? 'acts and cireumstances; the judgment of Courts be'ow are justified; holdini ired land of defendant No:1; whereas operty stood in existence; which was a credited consideration for earlier for the appeilant. Counsel for the appel!ant do^s not dispute that the sa!e deed of Ex. P/1 was executed In favour of defend^nt No.1 in the year 1963and in the above sa!e deed there was no stipu!atio|i that consideration against the sale deed remalns unpaid or the same is si |bsequently paid to the defendant No.^1. It is 3. XI-HC-78 +II*IMI awi<t> 3^?qFIRTO, ^TflUJI(i, torey __ ^. .^</6^. ^ 200 an^TTg^ (yi!^si<y) 3TI^T?iTf?ITO (i2iT3n^?rshH 5T<TRKgfeT3n^T -J- +i«rct^l.)xiwTfffNl iRl^li ^sif^irsn^T V 5^ ^ aiso not disputed that subsequent| mention that the same were execil due to earlier purchase by Ex. P/1 the brother of the plaintiff in hi| purchased the iand in the year subsequently this defendant tried for substifuting eariier written rejected by the triai eourt as eariier admission. Both the courts respectlvs parties, oral evidencs| respective parties have recorded a| of Ex. P/1, defendant purchased tl| defendant No.2 for vaiid considel subsequentiy executed sa!e deed 1 sale deeds of Ex. P/2, P/3 & P/4 do not ted with a view to discharge the loan arising Even otherwise the defendant No.1 who is k written statement has claimed that he |1963 from hjs personal earnings though |to r°si!e from his earlier stand and prayed fement with a new one bu.t the same was hat the defendant No.1 tried to retract his |be!ow on the basis of the pieadings of the and the documsnts oroduced bv the lconcurrent finding of fact that by document le iand and subsequently he sold it to the t'ation and thereafter on the strength of |:he defendant No.2 is in possession of the tda in view of the aforesaid anal recorded by the courts below are fi[idin after proper appreciation of ora! ar and there is no substantial questi| appeai. Accordingly this appeal has| dismissed. The same is accordinglyl VSQS ! am of the opinion that the findings of fact and they have been arrived at documentary evidence available on record bn of law involved for adjudication of this no merit and dismissed. same is llable to be Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.