^ %in;y^c &^^^^^ 6-f^^^-c^^^ L- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0°^ / 2007 ApDellant ^? Bisauni Bai, W/o Shyamlal, ^Naintiff) ...^,^?u^ caste ~. sahu' A:ge^ about_ ?6_y?,ar^ .•><(^^ Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Pallari, •^^- «^' ^^' ^'. Respondents (Defendants) ^ ^ ?A ^ ^•y' ^ ^ y <^ Patwari Halka N0.21/3, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS i. Kejabai, W/o Late Halal Khor, Aged about 80 years, R/o Pallari, Tahsil Gumr, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh ~ Through the Collector, Durg (C.G.) /^|/ SBKOND APPEAL \J/SIOQ OF THE CODE OF CW1L ^ PROCEDURE XI-HC-78 3Tf^?T ^)T RFT cP-TT 3:TT^T ^TT^ •s F' • ; l' 1:- ^ll+l^l »>*11<sh 3^T r^iqidq, WtOT^, f^<ni<Hy,< ^,A.M0, ^ ^^- -s; ^ 200: 3^i^i ^5<ch (lc<i^G<^) ^cTTW^rfN'^t^T 13/02/2007 Shri P. Diwakar, Senior 1 counsel for the appeUaat. Shri N.P, Koshta, coun^ Shri Akhil Agraw^l, State/respondent No, 2, Heard on admission, Appellaat/plaiatiff is 4l decree dated 22.1.2007 pass Balocl, District Durg io. CivU Aj judgnient aiid decree 011 30,^ Class--!!, Balod, Distiict-Durg by the suit for declai'ation permaneiit iiyunctk>ii was disi|iis Brief facts as pleaded b{ claughter of Hfda3khor aa.d Ge( Thereaft.er, Kejabai, defend^nt Halalkhor as his mistress, Kejabai got' tlie suit laiicls mut^ Palwaii aiicl revenue officer. prayed for declai'ation of ti") pemiaiient injunctlon to distarbaiice ia her possessi^n resisted the suit on -liie Halalkhor, Botli tlie Courts belowl evidence? recorded a fiiiding'/tll Advocate witli Shri Adil Mirihaj, |el for respondent No, 2/Caveator, ^ Paael Lowyer 4or the res'y-am grounjd X 4)i^fd41^^ii^<nT ^ fWf <Ri<-4i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T 411S^ ^ggrieved by the judgiiient ajiicl ^ed by Additional Distiict Jzidge, t)peal No. ll-A/2005 affmxmig tlie f.2005 passed by 1st Civil Judge, ^il Civil Suit No. 97-A/2004 where ^f title over the siiit lands and rfciissed. ^ fhe plaiiitiff ai'e tliat she is tlie |iidi Bai. Gendi Bai died ia 1957, No, 1 started Uviiig with death of Halalldior ui 1964, :^.ted in her nanie ia collusion with |OH these pleadin.gs, the plaiatiff tle over tlie suit larid aiid for the dcfendaat fvoin causing over the suit land. Keja Bai tliat she is tlie manied Vvife of 4fter have on proper appreciation of lat Keia Bai is tlie mai'rieri wifc of P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^l*4dl sb^llcb 3^T ^TPTT^R, ^Tfl^4!?, f®1^11^y » ^.^-NO- 6^ H^" ^ 200^ W^l 4^<b ('i<=<^<s«<ST) 3TT^T^lf^TW c^TT3T) T^HW ^ <-. K^T ^RTTa^^TW^T chl^?d41-1 ^l^dT'^tel^t<Rl^< ^^Tf^TW^T Halalkhor aiid on this ground^ diseiititBdg^ the plamtiff to the reMef clainied m tlie suit, In NavaaeethammaS VSo ^rjuna Chettt reported ia (1996) 6 Siipreisse C^ourt Cases 166, |t was hcld by tlie Apex Court as under: , "Interference witli the coticurrent fiiidings of the Courts below by the High Court ^inder Section 100 CPC niust be avoided unless warranted| by conipeUiug reasons. Iii aay case, fhe High Court is i^ot expected to x'eappreciate fhe evidence just to replace. t|ie fio.dnigs of tlie lower Courts, lower appellate Court faiiiy In fhe present case, th| appreciated the evidence tlie tdal Court tliat suitl Even assumiag that arj ?ind confirmed fb-e conclusion of was not barred by limitation, l.other view is possible on a reappreciation of tiie sam^ evidence, that should not have been doue by the High Co| view taken by the first ajj material/' lu this view of tlie inatter, Courts below benig a finding appreciation of the niaterial and| urt as it caanot be said that fhe ^pellate Court was based on no considered opiaion tliat no s|abstantial question of law is tlie findiag recorded by both tlie of fact and based cn proper evidence on record, I am of the nivolved m tiiis Secpnd Appeal ^] tlie stage of adniission, In the result, tliis Second of admission, Accordingly, M.(C).P. No. 2 and 2 also staiids dismissed, No order as to costs, hich is Hable to be disniissed at ^ppeal is disinissed at the stage 59/2007 under Order 39 Rule 1 Sd/- i Dilip Raosaheb Deshmi&kh Judge P.T.O.