KARAN LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 13/8/2007 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Ninth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit 04A/2007 (Karanlal v. Shri Tularam and others) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of possession, title and permanent injunction, has been dismissed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 04A/2007 filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts, as reflected from plaint averments, are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are son and father. Plaintiff/Karan Lal was born from wedlock of Rajobai and defendant No. 1. During lifetime of Rajobai, defendant No. 1 made relation with Pancho Bai without giving divorce to Rajobai and Pancho Bai is concubine as per Hindu Law. It has been further pleaded that from wedlock of Pancho Bai and defendant No. 1, two sons and one daughter were born. It has been further averred in the plaint that description of the land is mentioned in Schedule-A attached with the plaint and the same shall be referred to as the suit property. It has also been contended that grandfather of the plaintiff Late Punsai Malagar has purchased the suit property in name of his three sons namely Tularam, Prabhuram and Basant Ram in the year 1964 and at the relevant time, Prabhuram was studying, Basant Ram was doing agricultural work and defendant No. 1 was working as Consolidated Inspector since the year 1964. The property mentioned in Schedule-A is ancestral property, as such, defendant along with his two sons and one daughter has equal right over the ancestral property.