HISH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT ;ingle Bsncn : Hon'bSe Snri Dliip Raosaheb Deshi int tefendant No.1 ;,y^!m;nil-2!?*'^ ^j.^'S'Uagj.Sl Defendant NoJ teseondent 'iaintiff ;espondenl lefendant No. II 1. Gavatri Bai, 40 vears. W./o Kalyan Halva, R/b Khairkatta, Tahsjl Dondi Lohara, District Durg. 2. Fulbasan Bai, 35 vears.W/o Ka!aram Halva, R,fo Khairkatta, Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District Durg. Versus 1. Dhanuk Ram, aged about -— ysars, S/o Baiaram Halva, Tahsil Dondl Lohara, Dlstrict Durg. 2. Sooraja Bai, aged about 50 years, Rfo Khairkatta, Tahsil Dondi Lohara, District Durg. 3. State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh), Through Coilector, District Dura fM.P./C.G.) Present : Shri K. K. Singh, counsel for the appellants. Shri Akhii Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for ihe State/respondent No.3. •th Heard on admis (2) The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-02-2008 passed by the Additionai District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Balod, District Durg whereby the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1999 passed by the Civil Judge C!ass il, Balod, District Durg in Civl! Suit No.47-A'1998 was affirmed. instituted Civil Suit suit land bearing Kh.No.596 Area 0.66 Hectare and Kh.No.598, Area 0.19 Hectare situated (3) The respondent No.l/Piaintiff Dhanukram had No.47-A;'1998 claiming declaration of titie over the Iffi i ~7T ••^ ^ at Village Khairkafta and aiso for declaration that m ver the suit land in favour of the appellants/defendants after the death of Uncleheen Bai was iilegal. Relief for possession and permanent injunction against the appeiiants/defendants was also sought. The tria! Judge he!d that Dhanukram had tltie to the suit Sand and had given the sult iand to Uncleheen Bai mereiy for earning liveiihood. It v»'asalso held that mutation over the suit !and in favour of the appeilants/defendants did not create a> ti'de in their favour because Uncleheen Bai had none. The lower appeitate ;ourt 'nas afflrmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. ^^ »UB" (4) Shrl K. K. Slngh, learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that Dhanukram was the fitleholdsr of the suif !and. On a repeaied quer/ by this Court, iearned counsei Tor the appellants was not able So point out fcti.t- souree of title of Uncieheen Bai but merely contended that she acquired title oniy due to the mutation of the suit iand by revenue officiais in her favour. *h (5) !n this view of She matter, ! am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of evidence, orai as well as documentary, he!d that the respondent No.l/plaintiff Dhanukram had title to the suit !and and decresd the suit in his favour. The said Tinding ts purely a Tinding of fact. No substantia! question of lavi' arises for determination ofthisaoDeal. (6) !n the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. (7) S.A.No.1, an appiication for grant of stay also^siands dismissed. ^d/- DUip Raosat Judge Tumans