ORDER

This second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Class-1 Hata, District Damoh in RCA No.12/2017 judgment and decree dated 19.12.2018) and First Appellate Court (Second District Judge, Hata District Damoh in RCA No.03/2019 judgment and decree dated 18.01.2023) wherein the appellant is unsuccessful for a relief regarding declaration of title of 4 acre land and separate possession through partition of survey no.1/4 area 4.860 hectare land situated at village Ranjhi Teshil Batiyagarh District - Damoh.

2. Facts in brief are that appellant/plaintiff and respondent No.1/defendant No.1 are real brothers. Father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 Late Govind Prasad Kurmi purchased properties from the income of ancestral property in the name of plaintiff/defendant no.1 and their mother Smt. Sita Bai. Govind Prasad Kurmi also purchased another land of 4.860 hectare in the name of defendant No.1 with assurance that the plaintiff/appellant will also get 4 acres of land and defedant No.1/respondent no.1 will transfer 4 acre of land to the plaintiff. Another 4 acre land that was purchased in the name of mother Sita Bai has been bequeathed to plaintiff's son Lalit. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 resided jointly in Subhash Ward, Damoh but later on defendant No.1 resided separately and Govind Prasad purchased a house for defedant No.1 situated at Balaji Ward Damoh in which defendant No.1 is operating Brahma Kumari Ashram.

3. While the appellant made a demand of transferring 4 acres of land to the respondent, then he started quarreling with the appellant, and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff filed the civil suit and sought the relief of declaration of title and further prayed for the partition of share in the suit property against the respondents.

4. The respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 filed the written statement and denied the contents of plaint. That, the respondent no.1 pleaded that he himself purchased the lands as per the schedule by his own income through a sale letter dated 30.06.1992. That, respondent no. 1 the Karta of family and provided 4 acres of land to mother Sita Bai 4.75 acres to the plaintiff and he himself as taken 12 acres of cultivating land. It was also stated that, respondent no. 1 also purchased 4 acres of land in the name of his daughter-in-law Rukmani Bai.

That, it was also stated that, the resonant no.1 purchased 24 acres of land out of which 12acres of land is in possession of respondent no. 1 and rest of the land measuring 12 acres was transferred in the name of his family members by executing sale deed and therefore, there was no question arose about the fresh partition, it was also stated that, the father of the appellant and respondent no.1 has already renounced the world at the time while the respondent no. 1 was 19 years of his age. That, by filing the written statement, the respondent no. 1 prayed for the dismissal of civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. That, thereafter, the learned civil judge framed as many as 5 issues and since the learned civil judge did not find issue no.1 in favour of appellant, hence, dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. Trial Court framed five issues and recorded the evidence of plaintiff Ram Kumar (PW-1), Rukmani (PW-2), Virendra Yadav (PW-3). Trial Court also admitted the documents (Ex.P-1 to P-7) adduced on behalf of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 examined himself (DW-1), Hetram (DW-2), Brahma Kumari Mira (DW-3).

6. Appreciating the evidence, Trial Court concluded that at the time of purchase of disputed property in 1992, the age of defendant No.1 was 34-35 years and considering the evidence of PW-3 concluded that it is not proved that disputed property was purchased by the Govind Prasad Kurmi from the income of joint family property in the name of defendant No.1 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Trial Court also noticed that the concerned sale de