1. The plaintiffs/appellants have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Learned District Judge, Baloda Bazar, Baloda-Bazar-Bhatapara C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 58-A/2014 (Bhiman Das & Anr. Vs. Mangalchand & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 68-A/2011 (Bhiman Das & Anr. Vs. Mangalchand & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/ appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession to the extent of 3/4th share over the land bearing Khasra Nos. 316 and 320/1, admeasuring 1.396 and 0.061 hectares respectively, total area 1.457 hectares, situated at Village Chheskadih, P.H. No. 27, R.I. Circle Palari, Tehsil Palari, District Balodabazar (C.G.) pleading inter alia that suit property was inherited by defendant No. 1 from his father Sonkali, and thus constitutes ancestral property. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 ousted his legally wedded wife Sukariya Bai from the matrimonial home after subjecting her to cruelty and also drove away the plaintiff Bhimandas, and thereafter contracted a second marriage with one Radhabai, with whom he has one son and three daughters. It is further alleged that despite Sukariya Bai being the legally wedded wife, defendant No. 1 has neglected her and the plaintiffs, and is instead maintaining his second wife and children. The plaintiffs came to know that defendant No. 1 is attempting to transfer the suit property in favour of his alleged illegitimate children without effecting any partition in favour of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the plaintiffs, being legitimate children, have a rightful share in the suit property and defendant No. 1 has no authority to alienate the entire property to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further stated that they had approached the Tehsildar, Palari for partition of the suit property, but their application was rejected on the ground that their names were not recorded in the revenue records. Despite issuance of notice through counsel, defendant No. 1 has refused to effect partition and is proceeding to transfer the property in favour of his son Bhupen.

3. (i) Defendant No. 1, while admitting the undisputed facts, has denied all other averments made in the plaint and specifically refuted the allegation of having subjected Sukariya Bai to cruelty or having ousted her from the matrimonial home. It is his case that he had purchased land measuring 1.40 acres from Uttamchand and 0.86 dismil from Fekan Bai in the name of Sukariya Bai and provided the same to her, out of which the plaintiffs and their mother have already alienated 0.08 dismil in favour of Sonkunwar, and the remaining land has been transferred by Sukariya Bai in favour of her son. It is further contended that the land bearing Khasra No. 320/1 admeasuring 0.061 hectare is his self-acquired property. According to him, having already provided approximately 1.75 acres of land to the plaintiffs and their mother, the remaining property exclusively belongs to him along with his second wife and children, and as such, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(ii) Defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 did not file any written statement, and therefore, they were proceeded ex parte.

(iii) The remaining defendants No. 4 and 6 to 8 have likewise denied the averments made in the plaint and have contended that prior to institution of the suit, defendant No. 1 had already alienated a portion of land bearing Khasra No. 316 admeasuring 0.870 hectare in favour of Bhupendra by a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2011. It is furt