Family arrangements must resolve disputes equitably, but exclusive claims over joint family property require clear evidence of partition, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned Advocate and Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Shukla and Dr. Sudeep Agrawal appearing for the respective parties.

2. First Appeal No.31/2024 has been preferred by Defendant No.1 assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.01.2024 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Korba in Civil Suit No.02-A/2020, whereby the counter-claim filed by Defendant No.1 has been dismissed.

3. First Appeal No.62/2024 has been preferred by the Plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.01.2024 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Korba in Civil Suit No.02-A/2020, whereby the civil suit filed by the Plaintiff has been dismissed.

4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is referred to as arrayed before the Trial Court in the Civil Suit.

5. The Plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, namely Shop No.4 situated at Transport Nagar, Commercial Complex, Korba, admeasuring 296.5 sq. ft., the detailed description whereof is contained in Schedule-A appended to the Plaint. It is the pleading of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are his real brothers, all being sons of Late Parmeshwari Lal Agrawal, who was originally a resident of Village Raildabri, Tahsil Pali, District Korba, and had acquired approximately 32 acres of land from his own income. Subsequently, in the year 1974, he shifted from Village Raildabri to Korba along with his family. From the income of the joint family, several properties were purchased at Korba and the four sons managed the family business, though residing separately. The suit shop was obtained on lease on 16.12.1991 in the name of Defendant No.1 – Deendayal Agrawal, and a registered lease deed dated 08.04.1992 was executed in his favour. It is averred that the said shop was acquired from the income of the joint family, though taken in the name of Defendant No.1. The suit shop was given by the father to the Plaintiff for carrying on his business and since 1992, the Plaintiff has been running his business from the suit shop continuously.

6. Subsequently, the Plaintiff purchased Shop No.5 at the Commercial Complex and also obtained Shop No.3 in the name of his wife, Smt. Shanti Devi. He further purchased Shop No.B-2 and got it allotted in his own name. Thereafter, all the said shops were merged into one composite shop from which the Plaintiff continued his business. Shop Nos.3, 4 and 5 were thereafter let out on rent to Ashok Bajaj, who is the tenant of the Plaintiff.

7. Defendant No.1 is residing at Power House Road and the house in which he is presently residing was also purchased by their father from the income of the joint family, though it stood in the name of Kedarnath (Defendant No.2). In a family arrangement, the said house was allotted to Defendant No.1 for his residence. Earlier, the Plaintiff was residing in the said house in which Defendant No.1 is presently residing. Kedarnath Agrawal is residing in another house, which was purchased in his name by their father Late Parmeshwari Lal Agrawal. Though Shop No.4 of the Commercial Complex stands recorded in the name of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff is in possession thereof. At the time of renewal of the lease in the year 2020, when the Plaintiff came to know that Defendant No.1 had filed an application for renewal of the lease in his own name, the Plaintiff raised an objection and claimed that the renewal of lease ought