This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff

challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed by

Additional Judge to the Court of 10^th Additional District Judge (Fast Track),

- 2 -

Bhopal in civil suit no.47-A/2005, whereby appellant/plaintiff’s suit for

declaration of title and joint possession over ½ share and permanent

injunction has been dismissed filed in respect of plot no.132-C, situated in

Scheme no.13, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal.

2.

The plaintiff filed the suit with the averments that the suit plot was

developed by the Bhopal Development Authority (in short ‘the BDA’). In

the year 1980, the plaintiff/appellant was engaged in the business but the

defendant/respondent though completed M.B.B.S., was doing house job

and was getting only stipend. Father of the parties namely Shri Datar Singh

(D.S. Yadav) got the suit plot allotted in the name of Shri Munnasingh vide

order dated 22.05.1980 (Ex.P/1) by the BDA and in pursuance thereof, a

sum of Rs.2000/- and Rs.8348/- was paid to the BDA vide receipt dated

16.05.1980 & 31.05.1980 (Ex. P/2 & P/3) by father Shri D.S. Yadav as well

the plaintiff. Father was Karta of joint Hindu family and was in

Government Service. Smt. Raj Kumari is mother of the parties and her

brother’s son Munna Singh was also living with the family.

Thereafter, on 05.08.1980, upon application of Munna Singh, who

had no source of income and as per letter dated 19.08.1980 (Ex.P/4) the

name of respondent was also jointly recorded and later on lease deed

(Ex.P/5) was also executed on 18.06.1982 in their joint names. Since the

amount was paid by Shri D.S.Yadav and the plaintiff, hence Shri Munna

Singh after obtaining permission from the BDA vide (Ex.P/6) executed the

deed relinquishing his rights in the plot in favour of the respondent without

any consideration, as mentioned in the said deed dated 15.10.1984 (Ex.P/7)

and as a consequence name of Shri Munna Singh was deleted. The suit

- 3 -

property was always treated as property of the family and a panch faisla

(Ex.P/9) was reduced in writing on 06.11.1996 with consent of plaintiff and

defendant, acknowledging the said plot to be their joint property. All these

documents were given to the plaintiff by the father, who expired on

06.04.1998. On coming to know that the respondent has declined to follow

the terms of panch faisla and is claiming himself to be exclusive owner of

the plot, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of title and joint

possession over ½ share and permanent injunction.

3.

The respondent/defendant appeared and filed written statement

claiming himself to be exclusive owner of the plot, however admitted

execution of the panch faisla dated 06.11.1996 (Ex.P/9) but denied that

funds were provided by the father or the plaintiff. It is also contended that

as the plaintiff had threatened to commit suicide, in case he is not given

half share in the suit plot, the deed (Ex.P/9) was got executed by the father,

who later on had given him a writing dated 21.11.1996 (Ex.D/1)

disagreeing the panch faisla (Ex.P/9). It is also contended that in the year

1980 he was M.B.B.S. and was earning and the plot was acquired by him

out of his own earnings and not by the funds allegedly provided by the

father and the plaintiff. On inter alia contentions the suit was prayed to be

dismissed.

4.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as

many as 8 issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The plaintiff-

Vijendra Singh Yadav (PW1) examined himself and the witnesses

Shashibhan (PW2), Ranveer Singh Bhadoriya (PW3), Ramesh Singh

Bhadoriya (PW4) were examined and also produced documents (Ex.P/1 to

- 4 -

P/9). The defendant-Mahendra Singh (DW1) examined himself and

witnesses Smt. Shashi Singh (DW2), Dr. Satendra Singh (DW3), Smt.

Rajkumari (DW4) were also examined and also produced documents

(Ex.D/1 to D/8).

5.

Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence availab