JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 07.11.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by District Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 12A/2017 (Balram vs. Bugali Bai and Others) affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 45A/2008 (Annexure A/2).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 45A/2008 which was filed for declaration of title of the suit property.

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averment, are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of title of suit property bearing Khasra No. 3206 area admeasuring 3.13 acre situated at Village-Khokhra, Patwari Halka No. 45, Revenue Circle and Tahsil-Janjgir, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) mainly contending that the suit property was recorded in the name of Sita Ram S/o Allu Kahara and defendant No. 1-Bugali Bai. Sita Ram has taken renunciation, defendant No. 1 got married and living at Village-Navagarh with her husband. It has been contended that Sita Ram after traveling to various religious places came back to Village-Khokhra in the year 2003-04 at that time, he was aged about 70 years. His family members, members of the community and society, relatives have shown inability to look after him, therefore, the plaintiff started taking care of Sita Ram and also brought him to his house for care. It has been further contended that on 07.01.2004, Sita Ram convened a meeting of prominent persons including Sarpanch of Village-Khokhra at Mankadai Temple, in which, defendant No. 1-Bugali Bai was also present. In that meeting, Sita Ram stated that he is fully satisfied with the care taken by the plaintiff, therefore, he intended to give his property and also intended to execute a Will in favour of the plaintiff.

5. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1-Bugali Bai giving due respect to the wisdom of his brother-Sitaram has given her consent on blank paper after affixing revenue ticket in presence of two witnesses including Sita Ram. With the consent and opinion of defendant No. 1, Sita Ram has executed Will in favour of the plaintiff. After getting consent from defendant No. 1, in presence of Nandlal and Bharat Lal, Sita Ram executed Will on 27.01.2004 in the office of Deputy Registrar, Janjgir, wherein it has been stated that this Will is first and last Will and the same will be given effect after his death, plaintiff will become title holder of the suit property and this Will is being handed over to the plaintiff. It has been further stated that Sita Ram with consultation to the plaintiff again went on religious tour to Chitrakut where he died on 10.10.2004, the plaintiff performed the last rituals of Sita Ram at Chitrakut.

6. It has been further contended that on the basis of will, after death of Sita Ram, the plaintiff mutated the suit property in his name, but defendant No. 1 having malafide intention has preferred an appeal before the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Janjgir, which has been partly allowed by remanding the matter to the Tahsildar for deciding the case on merit. During pendency of the proceeding before Tahsildar, defendant No. 1-Bugali Bai sold 1.56 acres land to Bhupendra Singh S/o Tikam Singh through registered sale-deed dated 15.03.2005 and remaining 1.56 acres land has been sold to defendant No. 3 by registered saledeed. The Tahsildar passed an order dated 14.02.2008 that since the property has already been sold, therefore, no property is available as per the Will, as such, the said mutation is not possible, accordingly rejected the said application. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal, which has affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. This has necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration that the