The burden of proof lies on the party alleging joint family property to establish the property's connection to the ancestral property, as per Hindu law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Ninth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit 04A/2007 (Karanlal v. Shri Tularam & others) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of possession, title and permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 04A/2007 filed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, as reflected from plaint averments, are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are son and father. Plaintiff/Karan Lal was born from wedlock of Rajobai and defendant No. 1. During lifetime of Rajobai, defendant No. 1 made relation with Pancho Bai without giving divorce to Rajobai and Pancho Bai is concubine as per Hindu Law. It has been further pleaded that from wedlock of Pancho Bai and defendant No. 1, two sons and one daughter were born. It has been further averred in the plaint that description of the land is mentioned in Schedule-A attached with the plaint and the same shall be referred to as the suit property. It has also been contended that grandfather of the plaintiff Late Punsai Malagar has purchased the suit property in name of his three sons namely Tularam, Prabhuram & Basant Ram in the year 1964 and at the relevant time, Prabhuram was studying, Basant Ram was doing agricultural work and defendant No. 1 was working as Consolidated Inspector since the year 1964. The property mentioned in Schedule-A is ancestral property, as such, defendant along with his two sons and one daughter has equal right over the ancestral property.

4. It has been stated that from beginning, the plaintiff was working in Government Department, posted at Village-Karkona, Post-Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Koriya, residing with his family. The land admeasuring 0.012 Hectare from the suit property which has been given to the plaintiff on family partition, the plaintiff has constructed a house and residing there. It has been contended that Pancho Bai and their children are creating dispute and threatening the plaintiff that they will not give share to the plaintiff in the ancestral property. The defendant along with his sons and Pancho Bai had made attempt to sale, mortgage and transfer of the suit property. The suit property is ancestral property, which cannot be transferred without permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has issued a notice to the defendants for partition, but the defendants have given reply to the notice contending that the suit property is ancestral property, therefore, it has necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit. It has also been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share of the suit property. The plaint was amended and certain new facts have been added contending that the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 has granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property which is about 7 acres of land treating it to be ancestral property. Defendant No. 1 has given on rent and is earning Rs. 20,000/- yearly, as such, petitioner being ¼th share of the said ancestral property, therefore, he is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- yearly from the property. The suit is within limitation and the plaintiff has prayed for grant of declaration, partition and permanent injunction of the suit property. The plaintiff has prayed that the suit property be declared as ancestral property and the defendant has no right to sell or transfer the same by any other mode to any institution, therefore, permanent injunction to this effect may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been prayed that the plaintiff is also entitled to get ¼th share of the property mentioned in Schedule-A, therefore, his ¼th shar