JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed present appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 1A/2008 by which the learned trial Court has partly allowed the suit and held that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/8th share of the house belonging to the joint Hindu family situated at Jorapara, Raipur. The plaintiff’s claim for rest of the property mentioned in para 5 of the plaint has been negated by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the suit filed before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint averments is that the plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1, defendants No. 2 to 4 are brothers of the plaintiff, defendants No. 5 to 7 are sisters and defendant No. 8 is son of defendant No. 2. The plaintiff's father Chamroolal expired on 07.01.1993 and the plaintiff and defendants have received the property which is described in the tabular format in the foregoing paragraph as joint Hindu family property. It has been further contended that the plaintiff's father was suffering from long illness and expired on 07.01.1993. It has been further contended that his father was doing grocery business in the name and style of 'Meena Kirana Store'. He was also working as commission agent for food grains. The plaintiff and defendants were also assisting their father. The plaintiff's father purchased the property being manager of the joint Hindu family property from the earnings of Meena Kirana Store. As such, the deceased, plaintiff and defendants had equal share on that shop. Details of the joint Hindu family property are shown below:-

4. It has been further contended that the plaintiff's father became ill for last five to six years, he was unable to take any decision, therefore, defendant No. 2 who is elder son of the deceased started managing the shop. Other defendants and plaintiff were also sitting in the shop. Due to family dispute as per family settlement the plaintiff started living in House No. 378/1 which is part of 378 situated at Jorapara without any partition of the property, therefore, the plaintiff has demanded share of the joint Hindu family property on 15.01.1993. As per the family settlement, he started living separately from the family members, but they were working as joint Hindu family. The plaintiff has demanded for his share on the joint Hindu property which was denied. He issued notice through his counsel on 09.07.1993, but, no reply was given, but it has been orally informed that their father has executed a will, as such, he is not entitled for any share over the suit land. This necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit for declaration, partition, possession as well as mesne profit. It has been further contended that in the lifetime of Late Chamroolal there was no information with regard to execution of will. The will is forged and fabricated document and even the property is not self acquired property but it is joint Hindu family property, as such, Late Chamroolal has no right to execute will with regard to joint Hindu Family property. The plaintiff is also entitled for 1/8th share over the joint Hindu family property, as such, he has prayed for partition and declaration of the property described in para 5 of the plaint and also claimed mesne profit for last three years from the date of filing of the suit.

5. The defendants have filed their written statement denying the allegation in the plaint contending that their father was not seriously ill but expired on 07.01.1993 due to heart attack. It is emphatically denied that in the business of lat