PRATIMA PATWA Vs. TULSI RAM PATWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 18/10/2019 passed in Civil Suit No.7A/2016 by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the suit filed by the father/respondent/plaintiff against the daughter-in-law and the son (appellants/defendants), claiming ejectment over the shop bearing Khasra No.1061/4 admeasuring 160 sq. feet was decreed. Further the permanent injunction was also passed in favour of the plaintiff not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff of the suit shop.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the entire issue revolves upon as to whether the subject property was a joint property or not* He would further submit that the pleading and the evidence which contains the admission of the plaintiff would show that the suit property is a joint property purchased from the sale proceeds of earlier joint property, therefore, the plaintiff would not get any exclusive right or title. Referring to the statement of prosecution witness and the defendant, the counsel would submit that proof of the existence of joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property is joint to establish the fact. He placed his reliance in the cases of Surendra Kumar Versus Phoolchand & Anr. {(1996) 2 SCC 491}, D.S. Lakshmaiah & anr. Versus L. Balasubramanyam & anr. {(2003) 10 SCC 310} and Vinod Kumar Dhall Versus Dharampal Dhall & ors. {(2018) 16 SCC 645} to submit that according to the evidence, they were living together jointly and after sale of the property at Ashwani Nagar the suit property was purchased. Referring the statement of Tulsiram Patwa (PW-1), he would Smt. Pratima Patwa & anr. Vs. Tulsi Ram Patwa submit that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff has sufficient income to purchase the suit property, consequently, presumption would be otherwise to hold that the property was a joint though it was purchased in name of father.