KRISHNA KUMAR TIWARI S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PUJARI Vs. ORIGINAL RESPONDENT NO 1 BHARAT PRASAD TIWARI DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 18-10-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) in Civil Suit No. 37-A/87 whereby the said court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for declaring the suit property situated at Ramanujganj bearing survey numbers as mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint area 10.43 hectares to be joint property of the appellant Bharat Prasad Tiwari and Mashumati Devi and in the said suit relief was also sought for proportionate rent of godown to the appellant.

(2.) As per the case of the appellants, the entire property of Schedule-A and various other property are the joint Hindu Family Property, amongst appellant, defendant No.1 namely Bharat Prasad Tiwari and Masumati Devi and defendants No. 7 to 9 namely Saraswati Devi, Shakuntala Devi and Kalawati Devi as they are legal representatives of Rameshwar Pujari, who was father of the appellant. As per averments, Rameshwar Puari was having a grain merchant in the township of Ramanujganj and having land at villages Lurgi and Leelapathhar. Land of Schedule-A was originally owned by Smt. Durga Devi Kejrival, who wanted to dispose off the property and certain advance was paid to her out of joint Hindu Family Property. The appellant came to know that sale deed of land Schedule-A dated 13-4- 1987 was executed in favour of respondent No.2 Vidyavati Devi. On enquiry, it was discovered that the sale deed for consideration of Rs. 40,000/- which has been shown is paid by respondent No. As the property was purchased out of profit and earnings of joint Hindu family and as respondent No.2 was having no independent source of income and was living as house wife of original respondent No.1 namely Bharat Prasad Tiwari and sale price is paid by said respondent No.1 out of earning of joint Hindu family, the property is belonging to joint Hindu family.

(3.) On the contrary, it is the case of said respondents No. 1 and 2 that respondent No.2 was having Rs. 20,000/- of her own from various cash gifts received by her during various occasions and again Rs. 20,000/- was taken as loan from her brother and then only the said property is purchased, therefore, it is not a property of joint Hindu family,