C A V Judgment

1. This is defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2022, passed by 7^th Upper District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2019 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 76-A/2011, whereby the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of owner-ship, possession and permanent injunction has been decreed in their favour. [For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court].

2. Facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiffs, are that they filed civil suit stating inter alia that both the parties are descendants of late Jagatram. Following genealogy tree would demonstrate relationship among the parties:-

Thus, the plaintiffs are daughters of Sagni Bai, who was first wife of Kunwar Singh (defendant No.1) and defendants No. 2 to 8 are son, daughter, daughter-in-law and grand-daughters, respectively of Harkunwar, who was second wife of Kunwar Singh (defendant No. 1). The defendant No. 1- Kunwar Singh received the suit property mentioned in Schedule “A” attached with the plaint from his father. Due to not having a son from Sagni Bai, without getting divorce, Kunwar Singh had made second wife – late Harkunwar Bai as per Churi rituals prevalent in their Society. Thereafter, Kunwar Singh ousted his first wife – Sagni Bai from his house. In the month of October, 2011, on account of death of Harkunwar Bai, when plaintiffs went to attend rituals and sought partition of suit property, then their father Kunwar Singh (Defendant No. 1) and brother Jaipal told them that partition of suit property has already been done and the same has been given to Ramgopal and Jaipal and thereby they refused to given them their share. At that time, plaintiffs came to know about aforesaid fact, as after alleged illegal partition, suit property has been mutated in the name of Ramgopal and Jaipal, without noticing the plaintiffs. Since suit property is ancestral property of plaintiffs, therefore, claiming their 1/7th share, they filed civil suit seeking relief of title, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants.

3. Defendants No. 1 to 8 filed their joint written statement, in which, they did not dispute genealogy tree / relationship between the parties. They pleaded that the suit property was not ancestral property of the plaintiffs, rather it was self acquired property of defendant No. 1 – Kunwar Singh. They have pleaded that about 35 years prior, mother of plaintiffs namely Sagni Bai left the company of defendant No. 1 and she had been granted movable property in partition, she has also taken ornaments with her and after selling the same, she had purchased land in the name of her nephew – Sunhar. It is further pleading of defendants that defendant No. 1 had partitioned the suit property and granted it to his sons namely Ramgopal and Jaipal. It is further pleading of defendants that defendant No. 1 had purchased tractor for son of plaintiff No. 1 in lieu of land owned by Ramgopal & Jaipal, margin money was also paid by defendant No. 1. The said Tractor was purchased on loan, but, since loan amount was not paid by son of plaintiff No. 1 -Sushila Bai, therefore, that Tractor was possessed by Finance Company and loan was paid by Ramgopal and Jaipal by selling their land bearing Khasra No. 134, 135 and 280. As such, plaintiffs are not entitled to get relief sought for by them. They further pleaded that the suit filed by them is barred by limitation, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as 7 issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the same and contention of the parties, dismissed the civil suit holding therein that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property is their ancestral property.

5. Being aggr