ORDER

This second appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against order dated 10.01.2023 passed by District Judge Rajendragram District Annuppur in MJC No.02/2022, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.61- A/2011.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and recovery of possession on the ground that plaintiff is daughter of Baisakhu and Baisakhu was original owner of suit property. Defendants are descendant of plaintiff's brother Mangal. Defendant got their name mutated over suit property illegally.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that original owner of suit property was Baisakhu, and plaintiff is daughter of Baisakhu and defendants are brother of Mangal. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff is daughter of Baiskhu, it is also urged that appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking on record documents regarding ownership of Baisakhu as well as verdhi. It is also urged that appellate Court has not decided appeal on merits, it has dismissed appellant's appeal only on the ground that it is barred by limitation. From evidence as well as pleadings of the parties, it is clearly established that suit property was owned by plaintiff's father Baisakhu and appellant is daughter of Baisakhu. Therefore, plaintiff has share in the suit property. Learned Courts below have wrongly dismissed plaintiff's suit as well as appeal. Hence, it is urged that substantial questions of law as mentioned in appeal memo arise for determination. Hence, appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. Heard. Perused record of the case. 5. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2016 passed in RCS No.61-A/2011 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and Appellate Court vide order dated 10.1.2023 passed in MJC No.2/2022 dismissed plaintiff's appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

6. Plaintiff has filed the present suit on the ground that the plaintiff is daughter of Baisakhu and Baisakhu was original owner of suit property but before trial Court no documents were filed on behalf of plaintiff to establish that original owner of suit property was plaintiff's father Baisakhu. Before First Appellate Court. Appellant filed documents with respect to ownership of Baisakhu over suit property but in above documents, name of Baisakhu's father is not mentioned. Further, plaintiff has filed documents before Appellate Court pertaining to year 1954 -1955 and 1978-1979. But there is nothing on record to show as to when Baisakhu expired and how and when defendants names got mutated over the suit property.

7. Perusal of plaint averments reveals that no relief of partition has been sought in the plaint, only relief of declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession have been sought in the plaint.

8. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by trial Court vide judgment dated 10.02.2016 and First Appeal has been filed on 05.01.2022 along with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed and therein only it is mentioned that concerned counsel did not inform plaintiff about the case and concerned counsel has also expired. Later on concerned counsel's son, who is junior counsel, informed plaintiff on 03.12.2021 that her suit has been dismissed.

9. Looking to the period of delay reasons, mentioned in the application, does not appears to be plausible/satisfactory/reasonable. Thus, there is a huge delay in filing the first appeal and it has not been satisfactorily explained by plaintiff. Further, in view of overall documents/evidence available on record, no purpose would be served even if, order of First Appellate Court is set aside and delay is condoned.

10. In view of above, no ground is made out for admitting this appeal for final hearing.

11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Findings recorded by th