JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. The instant first appeal has been filed under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code by the appellants/defendants No. 1 to 4 against the judgment and decree dated 21-02-2005 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Sarguja in Civil Suit No. 31-A of 2002 (in case of Indravati Gupta vs. Krishnachand Gupta and Others) by which the learned trial court has allowed the suit filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff Indravati Gupta for declaration, injunction and partition of the suit property.

2. For sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as per their status shown in Civil Suit No. 31-A of 2022.

3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for partition, possession and for mesne profits arising out of the suit property described in Scheduled A and B of the plaint (which is subsequently referred to as suit property) mainly contending that the suit property is in possession and in the right of the plaintiff Indravati Gupta who was the second wife of Late Lakshmi Prasad Gupta. The marriage was solemnized between plaintiff and late Laxmi Prasad Gupta in the year 1946 after death of his first wife Smt. Maheshwari Devi who expired in the year 1944. It has been further contended that after sometime, their relation with Late Lakshmi Prasad Gupta was not cordial, therefore, he has kept Indravati Gupta in a separate house where she was living along with her husband and their children. It has been further contended that deceased Laxmi Prasad Gupta expired the year 1978. From the wedlock of Smt. Indravati Gupta (second wife) and Late Lakshmi Prasad Gupta, defendants No. 5 to 9 were born, whereas defendants No. 1 to 4 were born from the wedlock of Maheshwari Devi (first wife) and Late Lakshmi Prasad Gupta. Therefore, the defendants No. 1 to 9 are legal heirs of deceased Lakshmi Prasad Gupta, as such, they have jointly right over the suit property. It has been further contended that the defendant No. 1 started misbehaving with the plaintiff, therefore, they have approached before the Panchayat for partition of the suit property but despite the request made by the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 9, defendants No. 1 to 4 have refused to do the partition which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a civil suit for partition, possession and for mesne profits claiming 1/8 share in the suit property. According to the plaint averments defendants No. 1 to 7 have equal share of 1/8 in the suit property as they are Hindus and they are being governed by Hindu Succession Law. The defendant No. 1 being male member of the family started adopting coercive method and depriving the daughters of the plaintiff from their legitimate right for mesne profits of the agricultural land which comes to Rs. 3000/- per acre which has compelled her to file a suit for partition.

4. The defendants No. 1 to 4 have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint contending that plaintiff Indravati Gupta is not legally wedded wife of Lakshmi Prasad Gupta, therefore, the defendants No. 5 to 9 have no right over the suit property. It has been specifically contended that the property described in Scheduled A and B are the self acquired property of their grandfather namely Bhagwat Sao and during their life time they are in possession of the property of Bhagwat Sao after death of Bhagwat Sao in 1940 Lakshm Prasad Gupta and defendant No. 1 became joint owners of the suit property. It is specifically denied that plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 9 have right over the suit property. Defendants No. 5 to 9 have filed their written statement wherein they have admitted the case of the plaintiff.

5. On the pleadings of the parties learned trial court has framed as many as 9 issues. Issues No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the relevant issues, therefore, they are extracted below:

1. Whether after death of Lakshmi Prasad Gupta both his wives Maheshwari Devi and Indrava