IN THE HIGH coun'r OF CHHATTIEGARH AT B;LASPUR ' ‘ gf 2906 5ing’e Bench §ECOND APPEAL No. Krishna Kumar Tiwari, aged about 45 years s/o Dwarika Prasad Tiwari r/o village DhaniadOIi, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspiur (CG) Versus 8 years s/o Lakhan Marar r/o village Darwaja , Tahsil ‘Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G) State of Chhattisgarh - Through— Collector, District Bilaspur (C.G) Agggllan§ x {1” y PunaramV Marar aged about 3 Regal ongenis /V M‘ MEMO OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 190 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 A»: , l I. J r Appeal valued 7- A Rs'aal- - A“: v>530/_ w_i \/ XI-HC—78 Q? mm,m,f%mmgt mm .5» A .'.ND.‘. .%?:§ . . E 2006 mW<W> WWW WWW WW§wW %3T%nan%a 15.01.2001 \ Appeuanf-Krishna Kumar Tiwari by Shri A.V.5ridhar, Advocafe. Stafe by Shri Akhi! Agrawal, P.L. Heard on admission. The plainfiff/appellan‘r is aggrieved by fhe judgment and detree dafed 23.03.2006 passed in CM! Appm! No.27-A cf 2005 by Addifiana! Dish’ic? Judge, wwwm \y. geii, Disfr‘ic? Biluspur' wherein fhe dismissal of The suh‘ by the Judge €lass-Il Mungeii on 75.2005 in Civi! 5uif Nc.19-A af EGOI was ffir-med. 2. Srief fac‘l's of fhe case are Thaf fhe piainféff insfifufed a suit for possession pleading Thai ih suif iand was ihe joim‘ family praperiy of The plainfiff. There was an ami parfifion in 1998 in which fhe suif [and feii to the share of fine pi intiff and was veccrded in his name. ‘ 3. The piainfiff aisé did seek The reiief of deciamtian af his iiiie ever fhe suif iand. 4. The defendan‘l' resisfed he claim on the ground ihaf he was in leng, uninierrupied adverse p ssessian cf fhe suii‘ lands which his ancesior' had received fr The er-sTwhile ruler and had Thus perfecTed his TiTle over The sa e. 5. The Civil Judge, Class graund TheT The plain’riff had , led To preve his TiTle ever The suiT land and had led no documenTary evidence evidencing par-TiTion or joinT passession over The suiT la AdmiTTedly, The defendanT was in pessessien of The suiT lands. plainTiff sTaTed in cross-examinalgig Mungeli dismissed The suiT on The i / / C‘ l n n c f - n . e XLHC-78 mam wmm swatmm paragraph 3 fhaf his ancesfar ,«L’ WW%’R§Q‘TW %aa%n3n%¥r had purchased fhe suif lands frcm Rqja VX 5&rud Das. However, no doqhmemm‘y evidence Thereof was filed. Thus, in fhe absence of any d acumen‘u‘ary evidence To show fha‘i fhe suif iands were purchased by The ancestor of fhe piaintiff from Raja Gorud Dos er fhof the joint session of the plaintiff's fomilywas recorded over the suit land, th lower Court dismissed the suit. 6. In Firs? Appeai, fhe iea ned Appeila‘re Courf has affirmed the judgmentiand decree of the io r Court. I have perused the record of the Civil 5uit No.19-A of ZOOI and have also considered the evidence both documentary as well as or lon record. The plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of his itle and not on any weakness in the defendant's case, wha was odm ttedly in possession of the suit land. I om of the considered opinio that there is no legal documentary_ evidence to establish plointiff/ ppellant‘s titie over the suit land. Oral evidence as to source of plain iff's title is also vague. The finding recorded by the lower Court a well as First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has foiled to establ impeccable. Thus no substan' appeal. As a result, this appeal There sholi be no order as to costs. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge his title over the suit land is thus *ial question of low is involved in this ' is dismissed at the stage of admission. he Sd—/ P.T.O. mwen‘lmfwragt o mmi'idiW) s h i