MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 31.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No. 3A/2013 by Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar by which the appeal/plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.

2. Appellant/plaintiff filed suit seeking declaration that three sale deeds dated 16.08.2010 executed by defendant No. 1 Bawa Ram in favour of his daughter-in-law Smt. Aangan Bai defendant No. 3 are illegal and inoperative. Plaintiff also prayed for declaration that the property in dispute as described in the schedule of the plaint be declared as joint property and also prayed for a decree of partition. It was pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff Bhagwat Prasad and defendant No. 2 Teerath Ram are sons of defendant No. 1 Bawa Ram. Defendant No. 4 Smt. Sumitra Bai is the wife of Bawa Ram. Defendant No. 3 Smt. Aangan Bai is the wife of Teerath Ram whereas defendant No. 5 Smt. Kheekh Bai is the daughter of Bawa Ram. This relation between the parties in not under dispute.

3. Case of the plaintiff is that Bawa Ram and his family hold joint family property at village Charoda, district Baloda Bazar. It has been the case of the plaintiff that the property in dispute has been acquired by defendant No. 1 from the sale proceeds of the joint family property and from income earned out of the joint family property. The defendant No. 1 had no right to sell any of the properties including those which has been sold to defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai wife of Teerath Ram Dhritlahre. It was further pleaded that the sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 3 is a sham document and there had been no sale as defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai was not possessed of sufficient funds. According to the plaintiff, the transaction was only to deprive the plaintiff from the lawful possession of the property in dispute. On these pleadings the plaintiff prayed for the relief.

4. Defendant in two written statements came out with the plea that the entire property in dispute belong to Bawa Ram as his self acquired property and it does not form the joint family property. Defendants 1 & 4 filed their written statement in which it was pleaded that the property shown in the schedule were purchased by Bawa Ram in his own name at different point of time in five different villages namely Ramtala, Devarbod, Bhilaigarh, Baansurkuli and Tadapara. According to the defendants all the properties were purchased by Bawa Ram from his own income and therefore, it does not constitute joint family property and it is his self acquired property. Defendants No. 2 & 3 filed a separate written statement denying that the property in dispute was the joint family property and they have also made similar pleadings regarding the purchase of property in dispute by Bawa Ram from his own income and it being his self acquired property and not a joint family property. It has further been pleaded that defendant No. 3 Aangan Bai is in possession of agricultural property by which she is earning and further that her husband Teerath Ram is a Government Servant and he also contributed towards the purchase of three properties under the three sale deeds dated 16.08.2010. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed two issues:

^^1- D;k okni= esa nf'kZr vuqlwph ^^v** dh oknHkwfe vkSj vuqlwph ^^c** dh okn edku oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k dh la;qDr fgUnq ifjokj dh la;qDr laifRr gksdj la;qDr ifjokj dh vk; ls vkSj d`f"k Hkwfe dh mit ls Ø; dh xbZ gS \

2- D;k oknHkwfe [kljk ds laca/k esa fnukad 16-08-2010 dks Áfroknh Øekad 1 }kjk Áfroknh Øekad 3 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s foØ; i= fcuk ÁfrQy ds "kM~;a=iwoZd dwV jfpr foØ; i= gksdj voS/k gS \

3- D;k okn Hkwfe vkSj edku dk cVokjk djkdj dCtk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \

4- D;k lgk;rk ,oa O;; \**

5. Plaintiff examined 5 witnesses namely Bhagwat Prasad-plaintiff himself as PW-1, Babu Ram (PW-2), Hari Ram (PW-3), Nand Ram (PW-4) and Kheekh Bai (PW-5) and sought to rely upon as many as 22 documents exhibited as Ex. P-