$%ng!e Bemh: Appeiianis 1 . Hamtiffs )0. Resnondents (Qefendantsg 6. Triiochan aged 52 years, Sio Daniram, Shobha nand aged 42 years, S/o Daniram Kekti aged 67 years, D/o Late Ramcharan, Nanki dai aged 62 years, D/e Late Ramcharan, ail r/o viiiage Devgaon, Tehsi! Sarangarh Distt. Raigarh, C’garh number 3 and 4 presently residing at village Banhar, Tehsil Sarangarh District Raigarh. Versus Daya Ram Sio yudhistir, aged 52 years. Devisingh slo late Ramcharan, aged 70 years. Mohan lal s/o late Baliram, aged 30 years Chandra Kanii d/o baliram, aged 32 yrs. Fool kurrvar wdio late Baliram, All r/e Viliage Devgaon Tehsil Sarangarh Distt. Raigarhl, C’garh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Raigarh, C’garh. Memo of second aggeal under Seetior: 166 of the Code of Civil Procedure Present:- SN. Nande, counset for the appellants. Shri Akhil AGrawai, PL for the $tate. oRm. ORDER (Passed on 13‘ August, 2007) ”Heard ort admission. HIGH CDURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR Secor‘rd Appeal No.506l2004 Hcn’ble Shri Dilip Raoeaheb Deshmukh, J. éé (2) This second appeai is med by the unsuccessful plaintiffs who ewe aggneved by the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2004 passed in civil suit N0.l3—A/2003 by the Pt Additional District Judge, Raigarh, whereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-ll, Sarangarh in civil suit No.1 7-Al1 999, the appeal was dismissed. (3) The appellants/plaintiffs had filed civil suit No.17-Al1999 for declaration that the transfer of suit land by the defendants No.2 & 3 in favour of the defendant No.1 by a registered saie deed was void because t‘ne property was undivided coparcenary property. "\ (4) Both the Courts beiow have recerded a concurrent finding under a family arrangement the parties were in separate possession of the lands aliotted to them. in the plaint paragraph No.3 it has been specifically pleaded as under:- ”asidaaréimmimwnd—mm W—Wsimmdmmdr‘ga—WH WWmWdWed—«daé amt: W, imiids, a Edi—m m swat—ante tram m 1g :a‘tan qerawgem a5? Fm 3W WW Wdedsmadmmemwdma 3mddwa‘w—wlawa‘mmm Wganaqeramdmgqdimiamtsmgq adenvssafhddaaam‘idawam‘adtm Hmdmdddédiidsnd§3m§ammm mndWWQ—crqmwa:w%f’ / / ,x / A.” (§) The Soie contention raised by the reamed counsel for the appena‘ntsfplaintifns in this appeai that rhe plaintéffs No. 4 & 5 namely Kekti and Nanki Dai being daughters did not get the snare in the family arrangement and therefore, the same couid not be construed as a famiiy partition is thus iiable to outright rejection. Since the finding recorded by both the Courts beiow regarding the famiiy arrangement and the separate possession thereunder, is whoiiy a finding of fact and is based on appreciation of evidence, orat as we“ as documentary, i am of the considered opinion that no substantiai question of iaw arises for determination in this appeai, which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. (6i in View oi the above, LA. No.3113/2004 tot urgent hearing stands z disposed of. Judge i a” i Priya r “Dariip ‘ Raosaheb g Styx Deshmukh L“