IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof for a Will lies with the propounder, and failure to establish its validity results in dismissal of claims based on it.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. The defendant No. 1/appellant herein has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure A-1) passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 06-A/18, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction was partly decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that the plaintiffs Jaiswal Hindu, to whom provision of mitakshar law of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were applicable to the parties for succession. The suit property bearing Khasra No. 640/5, area 0.08 acres and Khasra No. 640/7 area 0.03 acre situated in village Champa, Near Hasdev River Barrier, is self acquired property of late Rangilal Jaiswal. A three storey house was constructed on the suit land and there were 07 shops built on the ground floor, which were given on rent to various people and the ATM of the State Bank of India, Branch Champa, was installed in a shop. The monthly rent of the seven shops was Rs.41,700/- and rent from various property was Rs.1,10,000/-. It was pleaded in the plaint that on 14.04.2013, Rangilal Jaiswal left for heavenly abode on whose name the suit property bearing Kh. No. 640/5 area 0.08 acre was registered and suit property bearing Kh. No. 640/7 are 0.03 acre was recorded in the revenue record in the name of plaintiff Mohanmati and defendant No. 1 Rajeev. The suit property was purchased out of the income of the joint family for the benefit of the joint family/parties. After the death of Rangilal, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 being the legal heirs of late Rangilal, were in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded in the plaint that the defendant No. 1, after the death fo Rangilal, started harassing the plaintiff No. 1 with an intention to evict him from the suit property. The defendant No. 1 was in possession of all the movable property of the suit property. The plaintiff No. 1, being tired of harassment of defendant No. 1, filed a complaint before police station under the Domestic Violence Act. It has also been pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 resides in the second floor of the suit property and defendant No. 1 has put a lock in the kitchen of said portion and had broken the door of the bedroom of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 was in possession of the suit property. The defendant No. 1, after the death of late Rangilal, continuously harass the plaintiff No. 1 just to evict her from suit property, due to which the need arose to file the suit. Thus, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction.

3. The appellant/defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the averment of plaintiffs only having left the admitted fact. It was stated in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable as no map of Kh. No. 640/5, area 0.08 acres had been submitted by the plaintiffs as there are three storey house constructed in which 10 blocks are there and the defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 1 were residing in 6 blocks. It was further stated that the Khasra No. 640/7 Rakba 0.03 acres was purchased by the advance amount paid by the defendant No. 1’s income and the house constructed over it had been made by the income of the appellant. As such, the plaintiffs had no legal right over the suit property of Khasra No. 640/7 area 0.03 acres. The plaintiffs did not invet any amount in constructed house over the suit property of the said khasra. Therefore, no partition may be granted in Khasra No. 640/7 area 0.03 acres. It was also stated that the suit property on which 3 storey house and 10 blocks had been constructed by the father of the defendant No. 1. The Shop in which the State Bank Branch office, is in Khasra No. 640/3 area 0.02 acres. After mutation, the survey No. 640/12 area 0.02 acres which have been purchased by the defendant No. 1 by way of regis