dammed than Pwan has signed on ihe Wm befere h§m andhehas ai$c Signet? befare Puran 5.9. he has not depased anyi‘ning reiaténg i0 executioni cf Wm and iis attesiation. Amer Smgh (PW-5)has ai‘so mi deposed anyming reiaiing t0 attestation 0f wiEi. Respende .i Bhuma has neither padedie nsr depaeed anyi'ning feietmg is exietenee vi ayn win. These evdence are net sufficient for pmvim;the preperexecutienand § aitestetian 0f Wm in accordance wii‘n iaw. !N As eer piaini aiiegetien, dispossessed Bhumiewaim has iiied suit for possessinoonthe basis of previous dieoossession before the civi Court. As per setidne 25G reed with Section u? (x)of he CC Land Revenue ‘Code’), 3ode, 1959 (for short ciairn of any reinsieiement of e Bhumimiswe improperiy disoossessed was barred. As per pieint eegaiion,ii ihe appeiient has constructed the house, but no reiief for possessionafterdemoiitionofthestructurehasbeenciaime. dPiain’rhas aiso nor veiued for the purposeofoemoiiiionofstruciure. it was siso nor suit ror possession after dispossession wiihin six monthsfrom{hesaid ’ dispossession in terms of Section 6 of the Specific Reiiet Act. in these circumstances, even on the date offilingor“ the piaint,s u'i e framed was not mainteinabie in terms of 3eotino25GreedwithSeotion257' (x)oit he {Eerie and Section 5 of the SpecificReiiefAct. . $onseqoentiy, substantiai questionofiawiormuiatd eforthedecisionof this apoeai is decioed as negatve.i 0n the basisoffindingonsubstantiai queionstoiiawformuiatedforthedecisionofthisappeaiandconsideng ri the aforesaid iegai aspec,t suit ought to have been dismissed. Consequentiy, the appeai deservestobeaiiowedandisherebyaiioweoi. Judgment 8: decree passed by the 4t“ AdditionalJudgetotheCourtof metriot Judge, Raipur in Civii Appeai i‘io.‘i5Al§4 are hereby set asicie and iudgment & decree passed bythe5*“CivilJudgeCiass—ii;Raipur,in 'Civii $uit No.22Af3Q are hereby restored.
