JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 18-5-2018 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.115-A/2014 whereby the suit was partly allowed and ejectment to a portion of the suit house was passed. The instant appeal is by the defendant and the cross objection is also preferred by the plaintiffs.

2. A suit for possession was filed by respondents/plaintiffs in respect of house bearing No.48/1167 admeasuring 1710 sq.ft. wherein superstructure is raised over an area of 1300 sq.ft. (800 sq.ft. at ground floor, 500 sq.ft. on first floor and 500 sq.ft. is open) as also the claim for damages of Rs.1,000/- per day was made.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit with the pleading, inter alia, that :

they had purchased the suit property on 7-2-2014 by way of registered sale deed from Sukriti Ranjan Das for a consideration of Rs.60.00 lacs and possession was given to them;

the appellant/defendant used to stay in the upper portion of the house with her father and after the sale deed was executed the plaintiffs were assured by the respondent that she would vacate the upper portion of house within 15-20 days.

according to the plaint averments, the defendant was staying with her father in the house after dissolution of her marriage since 2007. The suit house was purchased by the father of the defendant from Seth Jaskaran on 23-2-1953;

the defendant did not vacate the suit house and reports and counter reports were made to police at Mahila Police Station and it was reported that the defendant broke open the lower portion of the house; and took over the possession; and further to vacate the premises another demand of Rs.20-30 lacs was made; and

after purchase of the suit house, the plaintiffs got their name recorded in the Nazul office and Municipal Corporation and served a notice to the defendant to vacate the premises, but the same was not vacated, therefore, the suit was filed.

4. The case of the appellant/defendant was that :

she is in occupation of the entire suit premises and it was averred that the suit property was purchased by Late Nand Lal Das, the grand father of defendant, in the year 1953 when he retired from the service of District Excise Officer and purchase was made out of his self earned money in the name of his son Sukriti Ranjan Das, therefore, the property is ancestral one and the defendant being a co-parcener has a right in the suit premises;

it was pleaded that Sukriti Ranjan Das, father of defendant, did not have the absolute right to sell the property. Consequently, the sale deed would be illegal and plaintiffs could not get the possession of suit premises;

it was further stated that the father of defendant Sukriti Ranjan Das is a well known lawyer at Bemetara and defendant being daughter was not aware of the fact that her father has performed second marriage during the life time of first wife, who is the mother of the defendant namely; Ila Das. When some counselling took place at the police station after the report made by the first wife, she came to know about the second marriage of her father;

it was stated that the mother of the defendant was residing in the suit premises and her stridhan was also used in construction of the suit house and the father was in influence of the second wife and her children as such the incident happened;

it was further pleaded that a separate civil suit was filed bearing No.18-A/2015 by the defendant and her family members before the Court of 8th Civil Judge Class II, Raipur seeking declaration that the sale deed made by her father in favour of the plaintiffs is null and void and eventually sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned trial Court framed four issues and directed the defendant to handover possession of the ground floor portion of the suit house to the plaintiffs and directed that the defendant would be entitled to have access to the upper portion of the house without any obstruction. Thus, this appe