Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, district Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 20A/2012 by which the plaintiffs suit has been decreed.

2. Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession on pleadings inter alia that the property as described in Schedule A of the plaint, was the ancestral property held by Hagru Ram, grand father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 and father of defendant No.7. It was further pleaded that the defendants 1 to 7 had no other source of income except the agricultural income derived from the ancestral agricultural lands, as mentioned in schedule A of the plaint. Further pleading was that out of the earning from the ancestral agricultural lands of schedule 1, the defendants purchased various properties from time to time which included land purchased, various property plots and constructed house which is described in Schedule B of the plaint. According to the plaint, it was also pleaded that the mother, namely, Khorbahrain of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 and wife of Kumbhkaran defendant No.7, had purchased property from the earnings derived from the ancestral lands. Therefore, it was pleaded, that the entire property held by the defendants 1 to 7 though, purchased and recorded in their name, constituted ancestral property and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/8th share of the disputed property shown in schedule A,B & C and accordingly prayed for a decree of partition and separate possession.

3. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim by making specific averrment in the written statement that the defendants 1 to 7 acquired the property from their own earnings. The plaintiffs assertion that apart from the agricultural land shown and described in schedule A was ancestral agricultural land, was specifically denied.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues:

ØŒ	oknÁ'u	fu"d"kZ
1-	D;k okn i= ds lkFk layXu vuqlwph *v^ esa nf'kZr Hkwfe oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k dh iSr`d laifRr dh vk; ls cukbZ xbZ d`f"k Hkwfe gS\	Áekf.kr
2-	D;k xzke ds'kMcjh ,oa nsojchtk esa fLFkr edku ,oa vkcknh IykWV dk fooj.k okn i= dh vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ esa nf'kZr Hkwfe iSr`d laifRr ,oa iSr`d laifRr dh vk; ls Ø; dh xbZ Hkwfe gS\	Áekf.kr
3-	D;k xzke fljlk dh [kŒ uaŒ 1@7 dk VqdMk jdck 0-20 gsDVs;j Hkwfe jkeukjk;.k us la;qDrkoLFkk esa ekudpan ls [kjhnk gS\	Áekf.kr
4-	D;k xzke ds'kMcjh fLFkr oknh dh eka ckgfjuckbZ dh d`f"k Hkwfe ftls okn i= dh vuqlwph *l^ esa nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] og mldh e`R;q i'pkr~ ckgjhuckbZ ds mRrjkf/kdkjh mlds ifr] iq= ,oa iqf=;ksa ds uke ls ntZ gqvk ftlesa lHkh dk leku LoRo fufgr gS\	Áekf.kr
5-	D;k mDr okn xzLr Hkwfe] edku vkfn ftls vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ ,oa *l^ esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS] mDr lHkh laifRr ÁfrŒ ØŒ 1] 2] 3 ,oa 7 dh LovftZr laifRr gS\	Áekf.kr ugha
6-	D;k mDr vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ ,oa *l^ esa nf'kZr edku Hkwfe vknh dk caVokjk mDr Áfroknh x.k us okfnuh dks nsus ls badkj dj fn;k gS ftlesa okfnuh dk 1@8 oka Hkkx gd o fgLlk gS\	Áekf.kr
7-	D;k okn dk ewY;kadu mfpr <+ax ls fd;k x;k gS\	va'kr% Áekf.kr
8-	D;k nkok le; ckf/kr gS\	Áekf.kr ugha

5. After affording opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence learned trial court recorded a finding that the defendants failed to prove as to where from they had acquired the agricultural land described in schedule A appended to the plaint and they have also failed to establish that they had no other source of income except income derived from cultivation in agricultural lands of schedule A. It was held that the entire property in dispute, described in schedule A B & C was the ancestral property.