JUDGMENT :

1. Heard on admission.

2. The second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 04.05.2012 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 116A/2011 (Sudama Yadav & others Vs. Jagdish & others) affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Sitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 40A/2007, which has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 40A/2007 which was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit before trial Court mainly contending that the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint was jointly recorded in the name of plaintiffs' father, defendants' father and their uncle namely Budhai. The property mentioned at Schedule-C of the plaint situated at Village-Narmadapur, Tahsil-Sitapur (total 6 plots) area admeasuring 5.10 acres is purchased from the nucluous from the joint family property and the property mentioned at Schedule-B has been purchased in the name of defendants’ father. The names of plaintiffs’ father and defendants’ father were recorded in the property mentioned in Schedule-B & C and after death of Baldev, names of their sons have been recorded. It has been further contended that the plaintiffs’ father, defendants’ father and uncle were residing in the same house, plaintiffs’ father being elder one was manager of the family. Subsequently, as per family settlement, Baldev started living at Narmadapur and doing agriculture work in the property mentioned at Schedule-B & C admeasuring 11 acres and the property situated at Village-Kuniya mentioned in Schedule-A is recorded in the name of plaintiffs’ father. The uncle-Budhai expired prior to 1957, as such, his name was deleted from the property mentioned in Schedule-A and name of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ father were recorded. It has also been contended that the plaintiffs’ father has also acquired some land, as such, their area increased to 12.59 acres.

5. Since, the property mentioned in Schedule-A name of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ were recorded, therefore, the defendants have moved an application for partition and vide order dated 15.10.2003, order of partition was passed, but it was held that the plaintiffs will look after the property as mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint.

6. The plaintiffs’ has preferred a revision before the Additional Collector which was rejected and Naib Tahsildar has directed to the Patwari for partition vide its order dated 19.06.2010. This has necessitated the plaintiffs to file suit for declaration claiming that names of defendants kindly be deleted from revenue records of the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint and they be declared title holder of the property. The defendants be also restrained from interfering in the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint.

7. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the plaint mainly contending that except the fact that the property mentioned in Schedule-B & C of the plaint has been purchased by Baldev from Mahadev, but it is denied that the said property has been purchased from nucleus of the joint family property. It has also been contended that on marriage of Baldev, his father-in-law gave 10 buffaloes and other property in dowry and has started doing dairy business at Village-Narmadapur and after selling the milk, he has purchased the land mentioned at Schedule-B & C of the plaint. It has been further contended that Budhai expired issue-less and his wife got re-marriage and thereafter, she expired. It has been further contended that Surguja State was