The determination of property ownership validity relies on substantial proof of wills and the classification of property as joint or self-acquired.

judgment :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, which is an application for deletion of the name of respondent No. 3 from the array of cause title. On due consideration the same is allowed and the name of the respondent No. 3 be deleted from the cause title.

2. This is plaintiff’s first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. H-03A/2010 (Ashwani Kumar Sahu Vs. Bholaram) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has been rejected.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Appeal No. H-03A/2010 filed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition and possession mainly contending that:-

(A) The plaintiff and the defendants are brother and sister and they are governed by the Hindu Law. It is the case of the plaintiff that ancestral property of old house in a dilapidated condition bearing sheet number 13-A, plot number 103/1, Khasra number 50, total area 314 square meters is situated in front of the main post office at Nayapara Ward, District - Bhatapara (hereinafter referred as “the suit land”) which is registered in the name of the plaintiff and the defendants.

(B) It is also case of the plaintiff that he is working in Grasim Cement Plant and currently resides in the colony of Grasim Cement Plant but earlier he used to reside in the suit house itself. Defendant No. 1 resides in the said house with his family and whenever the plaintiff intends to come to the suit house with his family during holidays, then defendant No. 1 does not allow him to come to the said suit house with intend to evict the plaintiff from the suit house. It is also case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 has deliberately vandalized and caused serious damage to the said suit house so that the plaintiff cannot reside there. Being distressed by such act of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff verbally demanded his share from the defendants several times and asked for partition so that he could get his share and develop his part.

(C)It is also case of the plaintiff that when the defendants did not pay any attention to this, the plaintiff sent a notice on 04.11.09 through his Advocate to defendants No. 1 to 5 demanding partition of the suit house. The defendants have not taken any action for partitioning the suit property which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession of his share to the extent of 1/6^th share in the suit property admeasuring about 52.33 sq.m.

5. Defendant No. 1 has filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It has been contended that the defendant has orally asked the plaintiff to take his share in the suit property, but he has refused and has informed him that he will obtain his share through court process only. The defendant No. 1 has also filed counter claim contending that their grandfather Murar ji Wadher has bequeathed the suit land to him and his wife Sunita Wadher on 16.06.1993. This fact has come to his knowledge on 21.09.2011 when Ashish Dewangan has handed over the will during pendency of the case after filing of written statement. It has also been contended that on the basis of will the defendant No. 1 is the sole owner of the suit property, therefore, a declaration was sought with regard to title over the sui