RAMDAYAL Vs. DERHIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred under Section 96 of the Code of C42ivil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 14-11- 2005 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar (CG) in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2003 wherein the said court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaring his title on 1/4th of the suit land and for possession of land bearing Khasra No. 148/2 area 0.709 hectares, 161/2 area 0.709 hectares, 162/5 area 0.470, 148/5 area 0.360 hectares, 148/6 area 0.113 hectares, 184/1 area 0.158 hectares, 349/64 area 1.428 hectares, 945/2 area 0.097 hectares, 1053/2 area 0.704 hectares, 1053/1 area 0.704 hectares, 1053/3 area 0.700 hectares, 362/2 area 0.176 hectares, 377/1 area 0.40 hectares, 381/2 area 0.004 hectares, 787 area 0.219 hectares, 807/2 area 0.279 hectares, 362/1 area 0.066 hectares and 371 area 0.032 hectares (total 6.968 hectares) situated at village Hirmi, Patwari Halka No. 33, Tahsil Simga (CG).

(2.) As per appellant/plaintiff, the property in question is ancestral property owned by Hichharam who was paternal grand-father of the appellant. The said Hichharam had four sons namely Kejau, Khedu, Pusram and Punau. The appellant is successor of Punau. As per contention of the appellant, his father was blind and ancestral property was sold by co-sharers and sale proceed was not used equitably. At the time of execution of sale deed appellant was minor and his interest as well as the interest of his blind father was looked after by co-sharer Kejau. After death of his father he obtained copies of sale deed and thereafter he came to know about story of defrauding that is why he filed suit before the trial court but the trial court dismissed the suit against the factual matrix and legal aspect of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under.