JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Family Court, Balod, Chhattisgrh in Civil Suit No.33-A of 2016 whereby the suit preferred by respondent no.1 Jitendra Kumar Patwa was allowed by holding that plaintiff/respondent no.1 was born out of marital union of appellant/defendant No.1 Heeralal and defendant/respondent no.2 Meen Bai, thereby plaintiff/respondent no.1 Jitendra Kumar Patwa was declared to be biological son of the appellant/defendant no.1. Hence, Defendant No.1 Heeralal Patwa @ Heeru Patwa has preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by Jitendra Kumar Patwa wherein it was pleaded that defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa was engaged in sale of grossery items. The defendants became familiar with each other and subsequently they fell in love and according to their custom “Chudi”, she was married. Subsequently, they started living at village Gurur District Balod in the rented house of one Balarm Sahu. It is stated that out of such marital union, the plaintiff was born to them on 02.08.1992 at village Gurur. While he was admitted in the school, the name of father of the plaintiff was got recorded as Heeralal Patwa. The plaintiff further pleaded that before the society, defendant no.1 used to admit the the plaintiff as his biological son and when they used to meet in private, he refused their relation. After the plaintiff became major, his marriage was fixed as such he is required to give the identity of his father and requested the society that his father be shown as Heeralal Patwa (D-1). The Society meeting was convened but eventually defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa refused to admit the plaintiff as his son. Therefore, subsequent to it a declaratory suit was filed praying that the plaintiff Jitendra Kumar Patwa be declared as bio-logical son of defendant Heeralal Patwa.

3. Defendant no.1 Heeralal denied the entire plaint allegations and stated that he does not know even the identity of the plaintiff as also his biological mother (defendant no.2 herein) . Defendant no.1 has further denied his cohabitation with defendant no.2 Meena Bai and birth of the plaintiff to them, thereby, the entire identity of plaintiff and defendant no.2 was denied.

4. The mother stated that she was in relation with defendant no.1 Heeralal Patwa and out of their relation, the plaintiff was born and while the plaintiff was admitted in School, the name of father was shown as Heeral Lal Patwa, (D-1). Certain family functions have been referred to but eventually defendant no.1 shown his hostile attitude and refused to admit his relation.

5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned family court framed the issue as to whether the plaintiff can be declared as biological son of defendant no.1 Heeralal and gave the answer in affirmative. In respect of claim for damages of Rs.20,000/-, that was denied.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant father would submit that nothing has been proved by the plaintiff which can precipitate the fact that appellant Heeralal was biological father. He would submit that Ex.D-1 & D-2 would show that occupation of defendant no.1 was shown as labour and not as a grossery seller, therefore, the identity itself was in question. He would submit that the statement of appellant would show that the entire relations with plaintiff and his mother defendant no.2 were denied, hence a wrong finding of fact has been arrived at.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is nothing on record to show that the finding is perverse. He would submit that Ex.D-1 & D-2 itself would show the name of the father of the plaintiff as Heeralal and the statement of mother N.A.W.2 would show that she was in relation with defendant Heeralal and out of that relation and marriage performed with him, the child was born. He would submit that this evidence even could not be rebutted. Consequently the finding arrived at