^^y •r^tS^"" f~J IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ATLBILASPUR SecondAppealNo. ^J Of 2006Sltlgtg ,/ APPELLANT: /PLAINTIFF Sarojani D/o Karan Sai aged about 47 years, by caste Kanwar^ occupation agriculturist and house wife ,resident of Village Makanpur^ Thana and Tahsil Pratappur , District Surguja (CG). VERSUS ^ o' 1. Janmati D/o Sarkil W/o Chotai aged ^ about42 years. 2. Jhola Lal S/o Raghubir aged about 21 ^ years. 3. Chamenee Wd/o Late Raghubir, aged about 43 years. 4. Duejee Wd/o Late Ghura ,aged about 64 ^ years. AU resident of Village Makanpur, Police Station and Tahsil Pratappur^ District Surguja (CG). 5. State of Chhattisgarh, through the ^ CoUector Surguja (CG). ^y^' 7 MEMORANDUM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE RESPONDENTS ,- ©EFENDANTS ^ ^c" \i //^ /d ^/ CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 •€':-:: ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH, BILA8PUR S.ANo. 187 of 2006 Sarojaai Vs. Jaamati & others Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for fhe appeUaat, ORDBR (28.6.2006) 8UNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. (1) This is fhe plaintifFs second appeal filed under Section 100 ofC.P.C. The plauitifflost in bofh the Courts. (2) This appeal has been directed agaiast fhe inipugned judgment aad decree dated 30.1.2006 passed m CivU Appeal No, 4-A/2005 by IInd Additional Distdct Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District-Surguja (CG), arising out of Judgment aad decree dated 30.4.2003 passed ia CivU Suit No. 42-A/99 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Surajpiir, District- Surguja (CG). (3) The brief facts are that fhe plaiatiff fUed a suit for declaration of her titie aad also for pennaneut mjunction prayiag for restrainiag fhe defendaiits from interfenng with her possession over fhe suit laad. The suit was filed on two grounds. The first ground was that fhe suit land bearing Khasra no. 187 area 0.12 acres sitaated io. PC-13, Tehsil- Pratappur was purchased by fhe father of plamtiff on 17.2.1968 for a consideration of Rs.100/- and aa un- registered sale-deed was executed in his favour. She v -2.- ^•iiinii1 succeeded fhis property from her father. She pleaded that she is ia continuous possession of the suit property siace fhe date of sale. Secondly, she also pleaded fhat since her possession is un-obstoructed aad adverse to fhe ownership of fhe previous owner by way of sale-deed, she has perfected her title by way of adverse possession, (4) For proviag these facts, the plaiatiff examiaed herself only and she could not prove ihe sale-deed, which reinamed as un-exhibited and unproved, So far as adverse possession is conceraed, there is only oral evidence offhe plaiatiflT fhat she is ia continuous possession of fhe prdperty siace ftie said date. No other evidence is adduced by her. The trial Court held that fhe plaiatifF could not prove the ownership on Uiese grounds aad ultimately, fhe suit was dismissed, (S) Agaiast fhe aforesaid judgment ao^d decree, fhe plaiatiff fUed aa appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, The Lower AppeUate Court also took a sirailar view aad confirmed the judgxaent aad decree passed by fhe trial Court disxaissiag fhe appeal filed by the plaiatiff, It is agaio.st fhis judgnient aad decree, passed by the Lower AppeUate Court, fhe plaiiitlff has filed this second appeal, (6) I have heard fhe leamed counsel for the appellant at length aad have gone through fhe records of 2 Courts below aad have also perused the evidence adduced by fhe plaintiff, I have no hesitation to say that fhe plaiatiff could not prove fhe sale-deed as none of the witaesses of sale were examined by her and ultixaately the deed reniaiaed unproved and un-exhibited, So far as the question of possession is conceraed, the plaiatiff, apart froni her own evidence, faUed to produce aiiy ofher evidence, particularly the docuraentary evidence that her possession was open, un-obstructed aad was adverse to fhe ownership and possession of fhe actual owner of fhe property. Rafher vide /@) »»-NU^ c' 3 issue No. 2, the tdal Court held tiiat fhe plamtiffwas not m possession ofthe suit property, (7) In fhe facts aad circumstances, I do not fiad any reason to io^terfere in fhe concurrent findiiigs recorded by fhe 2 Coiirts below on fhese two pouits. (8) The appeal does not iavolve aay substantial question of law. It has no merits aad fhe sanie is dismissed at fhe motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti