., APPELL N1T$ (PLMQW E‘s) cW.-\ Rm PC‘N TJEN TS DE FEN 132$? T S ”g; w? W1 IL :b mum m_wm ~ PRowUURE 1.908. \fadvQHD n 00 C : lt‘m/ ....... imEmw§£§m$£§§M€§$§$QAm§§$T BILwPURuimawm a vg 7 ESECOND APPEAL No. [.29.Q.9,.a.. mfgm wggamh l. Kusumlal 3cm of Podhan agecl 38 years. 2. Reshamlal s/o Ebdhan aged 31 years. 3. mt. mlara Ea‘l w‘dow 0f &,dhan. All by caste Kpjqwar, R/o Bhavlar Khol TahJ‘iarbala D stt. Korba ( C.G. ) . VEPEUE muw 1. Chhechram mm (J'E late Ba§nha Kanwar aged 53 years R/o Bhanwar- K1101): presautly R/o 1 4 Karatinara Tahs3‘1 Kartala D5 stt.Korha (C.G.). 2. St‘éte of Ch‘natt’; ggarh Thmugh: QalleCtor Kc xba Di stt .Ko rba ( CG) ., 17 a’b Tgi§é&&ar Barpal‘l Tah Balavalj DWC‘trVct Korba (C Gu. 4. Ramsingh son oii Pyarelal Iii/0 Bhemm- Gudi Tah.Kartala Distt orba (C.G ). bé?) \ N ‘)/ oi M$eq¢ (077,. {gq “fut” “4L3 k$ §~J “ mwmwwmwmwww ?‘~ 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 237/2009 APPELLANT Kusumlal and others Versus RESPONDENTS Chheduram and others SB:- HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J PRESENT :~ Shri Sameer Singh and Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates, for appellant. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the respondent. o RAL o RD E R (vi-2-2011) 1. The instant second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-11—2008 passed by the District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No. 5~A/2008 whereby and whereunder, the 15‘ appellate court has partly allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge ClaSSvIl, Korba in Civil Suit No. 188~A/2006 dated 4—3—2008. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under:— 2. Plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit against the defendants/ respondents for declaration of their title over the suit land total area 23.75 acres and to declare the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 31—3-2001 passed in Revenue case N0. 13~A—6/2000~2001 as void and to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession inter alia on the ground that : the property has been partitioned between the parties and pursuant to above partition, the suit land stands mutated in plaintiffs’ name in the revenue record and the plaintiffs are in its exclusive possession in their own right. 3. As per defendants’ case, late Kanwalsai got 31.88 acres of land in partition. After his death, the land was partitioned in equal proportion between Bodhan and Bainha i.e. father of misma— defendant No. 1 and thus the defendant No. 1 is in exclusive possession oyer 15.94 acre of land in his own right. The plaintiff No. 3/Smt. Dulara Bai in collusion with Halka Patwari and Revenue Inspector without giving any intimation to defendant No. 1 got mutated the suit land in her name in revenue records. The order of partition passed by the Revenue Inspector was without jurisdiction, therefore, the defendant preferred appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed and accordingly, the defendant continues in possession of total land i.e. 15.94 acres in his own right and the suit preferred by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Issues were framed. Learned trial Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. However the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal and declared that out of total 23.75 acre of suit land, the plaintiffs are bhumiswami of 15.94 acre of land and the defendant No. l is bhumiswami of rest 7.81 acre of land. Hence this plaintiffs second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of both the courts below. Indisputably, plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners of 31.88 acres of land. The Revenue Inspector partitioned it Without any authority in unequal proportion whereby giving 23.75 acres to plaintiffs i.e. 7.81 acres more than their share. The said order was set aside by the revenue authorities. i” %fg ygmw / Fa. Although the trial court had dismissed the suit, the first appellate court allowed the suit to the extent of the land fell in plaintiffs’ share i.e. 15.94 acres pursuant to partition between their ancestors. The above finding is essentially based on the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to show any perversity, absurdity or illegality in the above factual finding recorded by the first appellate court and in the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal Without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine— qua—non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence of any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/— ‘ N.K.Agarwal Judge