Family arrangements promoting peace and preventing disputes are upheld; oral partitions must be substantiated by clear evidence to be enforceable.

JUDGMENT :

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. This second appeal is filed by the appellants/defendants challenging the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014, passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja in Civil Appeal No.82-A/2012, whereby learned Third Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by appellant/defendants affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2012, passed in Civil Suit No.43-A/2011, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-I, allowed the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiffs, who are legal representatives of late Nanku Ram and Budhi filed a civil suit seeking relief of declaration of title of the property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint situated at village – Rakeli based on family partition/family settlement between their ancestors in the year 1950, they be declared owner of entire property as mentioned in Schedule-A, to pass an order of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs over the property as mentioned in Schedule-A and to restrain defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the property as mentioned in Schedule-A either by themselves or by their agents or any other person. Pleadings in the plaint are that plaintiffs and defendants are legal heirs of same ancestor late Kundo Uraon. Kundo Uraon was survived by three sons namely Nanku, Gosla and Budhi, who also died. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of Nanku and Budhi whereas defendants are legal heirs of Gosla. Property situated at village Rakeli forming part of Schedule-A is fallen in share of Nanku and Budhi in oral partition made by late Kundo Uraon during his lifetime near bout in the year 1950. Other property situated at village – Kalyanpur was given in partition to Gosla. It was further pleaded that the property as forming part of Schedule-A, B, C & D are the property purchased by income of joint family property during lifetime of late Kundo Uraon. Property forming part of Schedule-A was given in share of Nanku and Budhi and property forming part of Schedule -B, C & D were given in share to Gosla, ancestor of defendants since 1950 i.e. by way of family partition/family arrangements. Nanku and Budhi possessed the property of Schedule-A and Gosla possessed the property of Schedule B, C D during their lifetime and after death of Nanku, Budhi, Gosla, their legal heirs came in possession. The dispute arose in the year 2005 when defendants have whispered about repartition of the properties as mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint.

3. Defendants have filed their written statement denying pleadings of the partition of property between Nanku, Budhi and Gosla. It was pleaded that it was not a partition but Nanku and Budhi possessed the property of Schedule-A situated at village- Rakeli and Gosla on the property situated at village – Kalyanpur. Property as mentioned in Schedule-C was earlier recorded as Jungle Jhadi , which was given in favour of Gosla under Nistari Patta vide order dated 08.06.1955 and thereby property of Schedule-C was self earned property of Gosla. Kundo has never partitioned the property during his lifetime. Plaintiffs submitted an application for correction of mistake in which order was passed on 30.06.2005.

4. Based on the pleadings made by respective parties, learned trial Court formulated as many as 7 issues for consideration and upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties allowed the suit holding that the property as mentioned in Schedule A & B were joint family property. Property mentioned in Schedule-A was received by plaintiffs in partition and thereby they are sole owner of property of Schedule-A and are in possession also.

5. Judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was put to challenge by defendants in an appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. on the grounds as mentioned therein. Learned First Appellate Court dism