Defeadaat no. 2 -«»- Defendailts 1. A. B. c. D. E. F. G. K. L. M N. 2. 3. 4. HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No.494/2006 Jawahir Bai D/o Sita Ram (Widow Shyam. Lal Dubey) aged about 72 years, R/o ChikhU, RajnandgoaD., Taiisil & District -Rajnandgaon, (M.P) Now (C.G.). Lakhaa Lal S/o Sita Ram (Dead) Legal Iieirs:- Sm.t. AmoUya Tnvari (Widow) Lakhan. Lal Tiwari, aged about 65 years, Shri Suraj Tiwari S/o Late Lakhan Lal Tiwari, aged about 49 years, Chaadra Sekhar T'iwari S/o Late Lakhaa Lal Tiwari, aged about 46 years, Smt. Sita Tiwari (Widow) Late SuTendra Tiwari, aged about 55 }rears. Nirmala Tiwad D/o Late Lakhaa Lal Tiwari, aged about 58 years. Shail Kuinari D/o Late Lakhan. Lal Tiwaii, aged about 52 years. Aniu D/o Late Lakhan Lal Tiwari, aged about 40 years. Rekha D/o Late Lakhaa Lal Tiwari, aged about 37 years. Chaiichal D/o Late Lakhaa Lal Tiwari, aged about 34 years. Matata D/o Late Lakhaa Lal Tiwari, aged about 31 years. Smit. Raj Laxmi D/o Late Lakhau Lal Tiwari, aged about 43 years. Sushri, Kavita Pandey D/o Surendra Tiwari, age about 26 years. Sushri Naiidiai Tiwari, D/o Surendi-a Tiwari, aged about 23 years. Sushri Vidya Tiwari, D/o Surendra Tiwari, aged about 20 years. AU R/o ViUage & P.0. Auri Gandhari, Taltsfl Doundilohara, Distr. D.ur^ (C.G.). Heera Bai D/'o Sita Ram (Wido Bhushaii Pandey) aged about 75 years, Caste Bhrahiuaa, R/o Village - Rajim, Near Laxmi Narayaa Maadirc, Tahsil Nayapara, Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). Bodhail Ram. S/o perdeshi Sahu, aged about 37 years. Ashwaai Kumar S/o Perdeshi Sahu, li?^^^^^^^^^^^ IW "s. N^ 'ff ::5;.'^ ;6^ ^s' ^; i[9^- ^m. flffi: aged ^ou^gt^yBars, B<3ffi<]^ Boffi^R/oyVm. ^n^ ':]&yara,6;Eji®i:t.-.I;iiJus;(C,G,),;';'^ff^':.!.- ^: 'Tik^KS^ Sj^^Eal, aged^^a^ tXeaFs^iE|BEB^^R^,;SiUagef£lAadti.ari;:: ,Ta]isiI,-.Eoa^ia^3^tt^ur&.^ ^'I'ekg%g:^:S^i^:^ain-jKesUav'iLal,' ^aged.abc}'uif2giy®ars,^.'^K.:^?.^.•; •... ":N^ad;^S^;|ais;iRgi3Es?EKesliaw'.l.al,.^aged) abc^^ ye^.^EcU^eQteothR/o^ •(-Gaiulli^'jl']^j;:;MIig^l^istfe;;E)^^;: ..(C;Q.).K:;'^,y^.i,|^^^ ^'\@Sill3IU^IM;^^^:BlMllEb^ ^:abc^i.28'3'EaTs,^(eas^l''T^I':^;.,:'c.^''l^;:^ ^IM^^S/|0^Iiu]£b;aH Lal, aged^a^ : •^7,:.yeai^,Seastie-T^^^^. '.^••;^ ^fliB^^Kumar;S/0:::fBbuldi^;.E^;~aged.; ;ab0u^.!22iyearSy;oaslE,'Teli,V;:;:;.^'..e^ ^^i^^a^igagey-^^^'iRahsa-^aaM^ | ,Lo}iai%.Bistt,^@iir^(©.^g,:..'::^,^ ,Sl^|Q^i(pBatisgaffi|^%jijifBi^^.: 1:(3oBe^r:BMic®'(©.'©.):.>;:,'^,^,.' SBBOa^APPEa^U^SlOO^KTHBl fSB'^Syx'^VSiQt^QiGSS. ;(SB?iHoa^l|ffiri;%|e^arna^^f ;Preseat;-^'SMr?t©,N'KEis3asali£^dv@^^ :.;:'Ms^Sangeeta:Mislu^l^^.^^lIie';St^^g^ :"!^7^0BAfeE<^SGEB I 'i::,T:^^,^ •..,;:.::..:^%^^,.(I»asse<^^ 'TIiis is S sefcoM "appe^ 100 of ithe Code pf Civil Procedure. 1908 (m^sUort Itoe Gode') ^ainst £Bejudginent aad deeree dat^ 4/10/2006 psjssed^AddiyonalDistric^Ji^ I>urg^(avfla^eal No; SO^^^O^^^^ datedIS/12/99 I^s^l3ySeeoiM<3ivjl;yi^ Suit'No;'I42-A/.98.whei^y^^^expai^pBj^edt^ appeyauttriatGQurtIiasidecraedtlie^ Lal 'bmtlier ctfappellalitiaitd^ :t ^/ 9 !1 "•^ JJ '•'SSas l' '•"•-gt""' fes"»^.-^1 over tiie properft'' left by her fafher naiaely SitaTaui sam.e has been afBrmed ia. fhe appeal vide judgment aiid decree uapugned. 2. Mr. D.N. Rrajapati, Advocate for the appeUant aud Ms. Saageeta Mishia, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 11 are heard. Leamed counsel for the appeUaut argued that property was self acquired property of the Sitaram. fherefore appellant was entifled for l/3Id share over entire propert}r left by Sitarain at fhe tune ofhis death. Reconl of Court below, judginent aiid decree of Courts below perused. AppeUant has not filed aay suit for properly was self acquired property of Sitaraia inteialia the evidence adduced on behalf of fhe deceased LaMiaa Lal is suf&cient to prove ftie fact fhat propert}' was aiicestral and Lakhan Lal was having */2 share on the share of his father Sitaram siace birfh after deafh of Sitaram. his heirs i,e. deceased Lakhau Lal, present appeUaat aud respondent No. 2 betng son and daughters were entifled for l/3rd sliare of fhe sliare of Sitarata i.e. each of the heirs were eutifled for l/3rd of Y2 sliare fhereby present appellaat was entiUed for l/6th share which both the Courts below has declarcd, I do not fia.d aay substaatial question of law for decision of fhis present second appeal. Cousequently, fhis second appeal is liable to be dismissed aud is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ c; IN THE HIGhLCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Second App^al N0. BILASPUR k^l6 /2006 (S.B.) APPELLANTS Plaintiff No. 1 to 2 ^w y yy isw ^a ^_y 1. Dev Dutt, aged 70 years S/o Pyare Lal, 2. Ram Dutt, aged 60 years. S/o. Pyare Lal Both R/o. Janjgir, Tahsil - Janjgir & Distt. - Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS Defendent No.1 to 2 1. Sahodra Bai, aged 72 years Wd/o- Awadh Ram, R/o Village- Persahi, Tahsil-Janjgir, Distt. - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- : Collector, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL U/S. '[00 OF C.P.C. .^" ^y.7^ ^:^^! ^°^v^ oiAll W f<-< 'tNr <tiT^fl si>*il«n t2- •<£ KIICII g»*<i«i» 'TS? "4I-4IC1 <4, eiTTI'M'IS, [sidKHy —...£(a.:....^&../.^.. •WI;2C 3TI^?T 'T?^' (1pf3^<T) C«ii*tRti^a <ffl^?i SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice^, 12.12.2013 Shri Ravindra Sharma V. Sharma, counsel for the does not want to press the due course the same has Accordingly, the having become infructuous. -Under instruction of Shri H. jappellants submits that he |>resent second appeal as in beccjine infructuous. appeal is dismissed as secorjd <»>i<iln<<li'WRff ^r l^11^' ^RgTC ^sifgn aii^i Sain Koshv. Sd/- p- sani Kosh; Judge r !!IIU'fllW<iyi;"lld<l, IISRTOira—ES/48—8/2012—80,000. '-^\