JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2019 passed in Civil Suit No.7A/2016 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the suit filed by the father/respondent/plaintiff against the daughter-in-law and the son (appellants/defendants), claiming ejectment over the shop bearing Khasra No.1061/4 admeasuring 160 sq. feet was decreed. Further the permanent injunction was also passed in favour of the plaintiff not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff of the suit shop.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:-

a suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff pleading, inter alia, that he owns a shop situated at Pandit Sunder Lal Sharma Ward No.66, Mahadev Ghat Road, Main Road, Ashwini Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur which is comprised over Khasra No.1061/4 admeasuring 160 sq. feet. The plaintiff contended that the said shop was purchased from one Shashi Rani Kaushal by a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2010 (Ex. P-2). After the said purchase, the name of the plaintiff was recorded in the suit shop;

according to the plaintiff said shop was being run by him and his son i.e. the appellant/defendant herein. According to the plaint, the son was indulged in an illegal business of diamonds for which a case was registered against him and when the father asked his son to refrain from such business/illegal activities, in turn he was abused and threat was extended that the father would be inculpated in a false criminal case of narcotics. The father, therefore, became scared, inasmuch as, in the year 2014-15 certain criminal cases were to the credit of his son i.e. the appellant/defendant;

consequently, on a report by the father, the son executed a document on 26.02.2015 (Ex. P-8) wherein the son agreed to vacate the premises by a certain date;

plaintiff further asserted that the defendant tampered with the electric meter which was installed in the said shop and theft of electricity was made wherein the plaintiff had to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compromise amount. Consequently, the appellant/son and the daughter-in-law filed a suit for declaration before the 4th Civil Judge, Class- II, Raipur so as to usurpt the property. In the said case, the interim prayer was rejected which too was affirmed in the appeal;

plaintiff contended that the subject suit shop is bona fidely required by the respondent/father for his survival, therefore, sought for vacant possession of the suit shop;

per contra, the appellants/defendants denied all the averments in turn it was stated that the said shop was never in possession of the plaintiff and actually the property was in the name of Surendra, the brother of the appellant No.2 but deceptively the same was got transferred in the name of the plaintiff and an agreement of 26.02.2015 was executed and it was alleged to be relinquishment deed in a police Station under due pressure;

primary contention of the son defendant No.2 was that actually the property in question was purchased by him in name of father out of love & affection, therefore, the father is not entitled to any relief;

counter claim was also filed wherein it was stated that the property was a joint family property and the property in question was actually purchased from the sale proceeds of a joint property and it was not the exclusive property of the father. It was stated that initially the ancestral property of Kankali Talab was sold and out of the sale proceeds the property was purchased at Ashwani Nagar, wherein all the family members were residing;

after selling of the same the subject suit property was purchased at Ashwani Nagar and house was constructed, therefore, it was purchased from a proceeds of sale of joint property. Apart from those averments, other averments were made that apart from the said property the plaintiff owns different property at different part of the city;

the plaintiff also filed reply to the counter claim and denied all the adverse averments