Ownership and possession of property must be substantiated by clear evidence, particularly in disputes involving family members and claims of joint ownership.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 21.1.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalore and judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed by District Judge (Family Court), Jalore, whereby, the suit filed by respondent -Jasa Ram has been partly decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants has been rejected, respectively.

2. The suit for partition, permanent injunction and possession alongwith mesne profit for use and occupation was filed by the plaintiff against Laxmi Narayan and the appellants inter alia with the averments that plot of land at Bhadrajoon Ki Dhani was jointly purchased by plaintiff and defendant No.l on 27.4.1981; since the date of purchase the plaintiff and defendant No.l are in possession of the plot, boundaries thereof were indicated in the plaint, a patta dated 27.5.1996 was also issued in favour of the plaintiff. It was claimed that after purchase of the plot, plaintiff and defendant No.l constructed six shops and one shop was constructed at the back of shop No.5 and 6 alongwith a water tank etc., the plot was not partitioned, both the parties have equal share, the defendant No.2 was plaintiff's brother, defendant No.3 his sister-in-law, defendant No.4 his nephew and defendant No.5 his niece, who were not favourably inclined to the plaintiff.

3. Defendants No.2 to 8 were bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff and, therefore, on 24.7.2002, an FIR was lodged and challan was filed by the police, in which, it was held that the possession was that of plaintiff. The defendant No.3 also lodged a false FIR, in which, charge-sheet was filed and matter is pending.

4. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction on 28.1.2004 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalore, which was pending for service of defendants, when plaintiff reached the disputed plot on 01.02.2004 on shop No.l defendant No.3 had put lock, on shop No.2 defendant No.6 was in possession, similarly on shop No.3 Jogaram and on shop No.6 Chaina Ram were in forceful possession and the plaintiff was not permitted to enter the premises. It was alleged that defendants have trespassed over the property and they have no legal right and, therefore, the plaintiff be handed over possession.

5. Further allegations were made that defendant No.l was raising construction over the plot, for which, he had no right. It was prayed that the suit be decreed, possession be handed over to the plaintiff after partition by metes and bounds with defendant No.l, injunction be granted against defendants and mesne profit for use and occupation of the shops was sought.

6. Written statement was filed by defendants No.2 to 6 denying the averments made in the plaint. It was claimed that the plot was purchased by plaintiff's and defendant No.2's father - Padma as Karta of the joint family from the income of the family and as plaintiff alone was available in the village, only his name was indicated, the plaintiff has alone not paid the consideration and as such he was not entitled for half share, the property belongs to the joint family, the plaintiff never remained in possession, the same was in possession of the defendants, the shops were constructed by the defendant No.l and other defendants, the property was partitioned by their father between them, whereby, the plot was given to the defendant and plaintiff was given two storey house.

7. Further objections were raised about the limitation, pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and that suit for permanent injunction without possession was not maintainable. The defendant No.l also resisted the suit.

8. Based on the averments of the parties, the trial court framed as many as 14 issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses i.e. plaintiff himself and his father - Padma were examined. On behalf of the defendants three witnesses were examined.

9. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that defendant No.l was in possession of half of the plot and plaintif