2025:CGHC:45158-DB NAFR Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 158 of 2023 Judgement reserved on: 11.07.2025 Judgement delivered on: 04.09.2025

1. Afroz Khan, S/o Sattar Khan @ Khwaja Aftab Ahmed, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mahaveer Colony, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G.

2. Bilquis Baig, S/o Habib Nizami, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Mahaveer Colony, Durg, Tahsil And District- Durg, C.G.

...Appellants/Defendants versus • Abdul Razzak Khan, S/o Late Raheem Khan, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Saket Colony, Ward No. 59, Katulbord, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

C A V Judgment

Per , Rajani Dubey , Judge

1. The defendants have filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 passed by learned Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 59-A/2018 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff to seek a decree of eviction and permanent injunction has been allowed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the appeal are that on 03.06.1980, the plaintiff purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 524/1, measuring area 1500 sq.ft. with patwari halka number (PHN) 77/1 and revenue number (RNM) 64, situated in village Kasaridih, Tahsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh, from Vijay Singh through a registered sale deed. On this land, there is a two storey house (referred to as the suit property). The other siblings of the plaintiff are living on their own, but the defendants have no place to reside. Therefore, the plaintiff allowed them to reside in his house. Later on, the defendants built their own house but did not vacate the suit property, as a result, the plaintiff filed eviction suit against the defendants to obtain a decree for eviction. Upon serving notice, the defendants have filed their joint written statements, whereby denied the plaint averments and submitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by his late father- Rahim Khan. The house situated on the suit property was built through the joint income of the plaintiff and defendants along with late Rahim Khan. The plaintiff has not solely built the suit property. Therefore, the instant suit lacks merit and should be dismissed.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed as many as 5 issues for adjudication of suit and directed the parties to lead their respective evidence.

4. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023, the learned trial Court has directed the suit in favour of plaintiff, whereby directed the defendants to vacate the suit property. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.08.2023 is perverse, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set-aside/quashed. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the plaintiff would not get any exclusive right or title over the subject property. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that where it is established or admitted that the joint family which possessed joint family property, which from its nature and relative value, may have formed a nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the presumption arises that it was a joint property and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquired. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that he had separate income, from which, he brought to the suit property and thus property is not joint family property, therefore in absence of such evidence he cannot succeed t