JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Heard.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28/07/2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.10-A/2010 whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The admitted facts are that:-

the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other. The defendant No.2 Lunkaran (since deceased) Son of Amolak Chand Bafna was the father of plaintiff, whereas Mohanlal (Defendant No.1), Rajendra (Defendant No.3), Bhurmal (Defendant No.4), Dhyanchand (Defendant No.5) are sons of Lunkaran and Smt. Ushma Devi (Defendant No.6) is the daughter-in-law of Lunkaran Bafna (the other son of Lunkaran) and Sonu (Defendant No.7) is the son of Inderchand. The genealogical tree is shown hereunder:-

the plaintiff filed a suit claiming declaration that he is the co-owner of suit property valued @ Rs.29 Lakhs and further declaration was prayed for that a decree dated 26/08/2007 obtained in Civil Suit No.8-A/2007 in between Mohanlal and Lunkaran before Lok Adalat is not binding on plaintiff and would not affect the right of brothers and the plaintiff and permanent injunction was claimed for;

the plaintiff averred that his grandfather Amolak Chand Bafna came from Jodhpur (Rajasthan) and started his business at Gatapar Kala in name of Amolak Chand Heera Lal. In the year 1971 late Amolak Chand purchased the suit house in name of Heera Lal and Lunkaran from the joint income of the family business. It was further stated that Amolak Chand had two sons namely Heeralal Bafna and Lunkaran and Heeralal did not have any child. Lunkaran had 5 sons out of them Inderchand Bafna has died whose wife and son were made parties;

the plaintiff further claimed that since Heeralal Bafna had no son, as such he kept Mohanlal (Defendant No.1) S/o Lunkaran with him. The plaintiff further stated that in the year 1989 he started living at Mudiyamohara and started his business. The plaintiff further averred that the suit house which was at Rajnandgaon a suggestion came for partition in between Heeralal Bafna and Lunkaran in the year 2006, wherein the house was valued at Rs.29 Lakhs;

the plaintiff averred that it was agreed that the house would be kept by Heeralal and Rs.1 Lakh of loan of late Inderchand Bafna the other brother would be paid by Heeralal and the rest of the amount would be paid which would be distributed amongst the legal heirs of Lunkaran. He stated that though agreement was executed but was never acted upon;

the plaintiff further stated that in the month of January, 2009 he came to know that the suit house was recorded in name of Mohanlal (Defendant No.1) and when he made an enquiry it was revealed that in a Lok Adalat the suit filed between Mohanlal and his father Lunkaran creating pressure on defendant No.2, the father, a fake decree has been executed and by virtue of such decree right of Defendant Nos.3 to 7 were eliminated;

the plaintiff stated that the suit property was purchased by Amolak Chand the grandfather of plaintiff and the plaintiff along with other defendants are co-parcener of the said property. It was further pleaded that concealing all those facts, by valuing the property to Rs.29 Lakhs, the decree was obtained by fraud, which is not binding on the plaintiff and other defendants. The plaintiff stated that if it is found that Mohanlal was adopted by Heeralal then in such case Mohanlal would be entitled to the share of Heeralal and the other defendants would be entitled to claim half of the share of