17/01/2025 Radhe Shyam Saraf, S/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o v. Smt. Vidya Devi Saraf, W/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3147-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 585 of 2018 Judgment Reserved on : 04/12/2024 Judgment Delivered on : 17/01/2025 Radhe Shyam Saraf, S/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Kashyap Colony, Gulley No. 05, Geetanjali Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ….... Appellant/ Plaintiff versus Smt. Vidya Devi Saraf, W/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Kashyap Colony, Gulley No. 05, Geetanjali Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Santosh Kumar Soni, S/o Shri Jagannath Prasad Soni, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Kashyap Colony, Gulley No. 05, Geetanjali Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Smt. Ramani Soni, D/o Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, R/o Kashyap Colony, Gulley No. 01, Geetanjali Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Shivani Soni, W/o Dilip Verma, Aged About 55 Years Through Dilip Verma, (MPEB), Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. Minakshi Vijayvargiya W/o Prashant Vijayvargiya, R/o Bharat Gas Agency, Devas, Madhya Pradesh Purushottam Lal Saraf, S/o Late Lakhanlal, R/o Near Shiv Talkies, Kapil Agency, In Front Of Dr. Ladikar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Naresh Gupta, S/o Ramadhar Gupta, Aged About 42 Years, Caste Baniya, Occupation Business, Present Address - Vinoba Nagar, In Front Of Magneto Mall, Bilaspur, Tehsil Occupation E.E. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2 8. 9. And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Sunil Nagdeo S/o Govind Ram Nagdeo Aged About 38 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Keshav Kumar Kashyap S/o Jagannath Kashyap Aged About 42 Years R/o Telipara, Bilaspur, Near Ajit Hotel, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 10. Kesri Nandan Upadhyaya S/o Shivdhari Upadhyaya Aged About 42 Years R/o Sai Mandir Road, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ..... Respondents/ Defendants For Appellant For Respondent No.2 For Respondent Nos.7 to 10. : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Advocate Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru (C A V Judgment) Per Rajani Dubey, J 1. The plaintiff/appellant herein has filed this appeal being
Facts
aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 (Annexure p-1) passed by Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.77A/2016, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/ appellant herein for declaration of title, declaration of registered sale deed as null and void and permanent injunction was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred as per their description before the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiff/appellant, are that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 are real brothers, and defendant No.01 is their mother. Except respondent No.- 02 & 3
Legal Reasoning
submits that it is settled law that after the death of owner of any kind of property, law of succession applies, and according to the law, property shall be divided equally in between the heirs. Hence, as appellant has proved before the trial Court that property of Schedule-B was bought by his father Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni from his own income, merely because it was bought in the name of his mother i.e. respondent No.1, it does 7 not create ownership. Hence, after the death of Late Lakhanlal Soni, the said property must be distributed in between all the heirs of Late Lakhanlal Soni, and gift deed executed by defendant No.1 is also void-ab-initio as she has not complete right over the said property. Learned counsel also submits that the plaintiff has proved Yaddasht-Nama beyond doubt before the learned trial Court but it did not consider the same merely because it was not registered. The plaintiff has proved his contribution for buying the property shown in Schedule-A is undoubted, his right over the same is also undoubted. Merely because that plaintiff’s share was there in property shown in Schedule-A in accordance with Yaddasht-Nama, he constructed residential house from his own income, with consent of defendant No.1 and mother of defendant No.2. 9. Learned counsel also submits that defendant No.1 has no clear and complete right over the property shown in Schedule-A, sale deeds executed by her in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are void-ab-initio. The gift deed in respect of property shown in Schedule-B executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No. 6 is also liable to be declared null and void as defendant No.1 had no such right to execute the same. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC challenging the finding of the learned trail Court wherein it was held that the defendant No.2 is not entitled for his respective share in the suit property, which is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the provision of law. It has 8 been submitted that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that Yadast Nama (Ex.P/1) dated 13.04.1989 in which it was agreed between the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 that they would buy the suit property bearing Khasra No.- 284/1, Area- 0.50 acres/ 50 decimal situated in Kashyap Colony, Juna Bilaspur, Bilaspur jointly and later, with mutual consent they agreed that sale deed will be executed in name of defendant No. 1 - Smt. Vidya Devi alone. In the said transaction, the defendant No. 2 mother namely Late Durgabai Soni gave Rs 23,000/- out of total consideration amount of Rs 56,000/-, and it was also agreed that defendant No.1 will take about 3000 square feet and defendant No. 2 mother will take about 5000 sq. feet land and rest will be divided among plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 respectively. As such, on the basis of Ex P-1 (Yadast Nama) dated 13.04.1989, it is apparent that the defendant No. 2 is entitled for his respective share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule A. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that that as per the Yadast Nama (Ex.P/1) dated 13.04.1989, the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A bearing Khasra No.- 284/1, Area- 0.50 acres/50 decimal situated in Kashyap Colony, Juna Bilaspur, Bilaspur was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1 -Smt. Vidya Devi vide two registered sale deed dated 17.08.1989 (Ex D-23) and 09.06.1989 (Ex D-24) which shows that as per Yadast Nama (Ex P-1) dated 13.04.1989, the suit property mentioned in Schedule- A was purchased in the name 9 of defendant No.1 -Smt. Vidya Devi and the same was acted upon by the parties. The learned trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that vide order dated 17.02.2010 (Ex.D/11) passed by the Tahsildar, Bilaspur, the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A to the extent of defendant No.2 mother namely Durgabai Soni share, her name was mutated in the revenue records and the same was not challenged before any revenue Court, as such, this order attained its finality. The order dated 17.02.2010 clearly shows that the defendant No.2 and her mother are in possession in respect of her share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A and are residing in the same by constructing a two storey house. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate subsequently that registestered Yadast Nama dated 28.11.2003 (Ex D-12) was executed between defendant No. 1 - Smt. Vidya Devi and defendant No.2 mother Durga Bai Soni by which it was agreed mutually between the parties that Durga Bai Soni would be entitled for 4113. 21 square feet of land in the suit property mentioned in Schedule- A which shows that as per the registered Yadast Nama (Ex.D/12), the defendant No. 2 is owner of 4113.21 square feet of land out of the total suit property mentioned in Schedule-A. Leaned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact as per Ex D-13 dated 31.05.2003 and Ex D-14 dated 29.05.2009, the defendant No. 2- mother was given permission for construction over her share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A from 10 Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, and subsequently, a two storied house has been constructed in which the defendant No. 2 and his family are still residing. The learned trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that for construction of house over the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A, the defendant No. 2 took loan from Allahabad Bank and subsequently vide Ex D-18 and Ex D-19, no dues certificate was issued to the defendant No. 2 which shows that after the execution of registered Yadast Nama dated 28.11.2003 (Ex D-12), the defendant No. 2 and his family took possession of their share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A and constructed the house. Learned counsel also submits that for construction of house over the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A, the defendant No. 2 mother (Durgabai Soni) also took house loan from State Bank of India and subsequently vide Ex D-21, no dues certificate was issued to the defendant No. 2 mother which shows that after execution of registered Yadast Nama dated 28.11.2003 (Ex D-12), the defendant no. 2 and his family took possession of their share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A and constructed the house, which the learned trial Court did not consider while passing the impugned judgment. Thus, as per the facts and circumstances of the case and oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court erred in not holding that the defendant No.2 are owner of 4113. 21 square feet of land and having share of vacant land in the suit property mentioned in Schedule -A. Therefore, the cross objection filed by the 11 defendant No.2 may be allowed and declare the defendant No.2 to be owner of 4113.21 square feel of land in the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A of which he is in possession and having share of vacant land of suit property mentioned in Schedule-A and the contrary finding of the learned trial Court may be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 10 submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree which does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. It is an admitted position in this case that the plaintiff Radhe Shyam Saraf and defendant No.6-Purushottam Lal Saraf are son of late Lakhanlal Soni and defendant No.1 Smt. Vidya Devi Saraf is their mother and except defendant Nos. 7 to 10 all are legal heirs of Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of both the parties, framed as many as 12 issues but the Issue Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are important issues, which are reproduced herein as under :- क० 1 2 वाद ्ቚ् जू(cid:9)ा नि(cid:22)लासपुर ቝኌ(cid:27)(cid:28)त क्या कश्यप कालो(cid:9)ी] रक(cid:22)ा 0-50 वाद्ቇ(cid:27)त भूनि खसरा (cid:9)ं(cid:22)र 284@1 एवं ्ቚतितवादी एकड को वादी] ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 1 ्ቅ ांक 2 की ाता (cid:27)व० दुቇኋा(cid:12) (cid:22)ाई सो(cid:9)ी ्ቛारा नि लकर ्ቚतितफल की राशि- का भुቇኋता(cid:9) कर ्ቚतितवादी के (cid:9)ा पर निद(cid:9)ांक 17-04-1989 क ांक 1 एवं निद(cid:9)ांक 09-06-1989 को नि(cid:9)ष्पानिदत निव्ቅयप्ቔों के ाध्य से कय की ቇኋई (cid:28)ी ? क्या उ्ሹ भूनि के सं(cid:22)ंध ें वादी] एवं ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 2 सो(cid:9)ी के ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 1 की ाता (cid:27)व० दुቇኋा(cid:12) (cid:22)ाई एक निद(cid:9)ांक 13-04-1989 को ्ቛारा नि(cid:9)ष्क्ቧ(cid:12) ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं 12 यनिद हां ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 1 नि(cid:9)ष्पानिदत निकया ቇኋया (cid:28)ा ? या्ቌाश्त(cid:9)ा ा तो] izHkko A क्या वादप्ቔ के सा(cid:28) संल्ሿ अ(cid:9)ुसूची& अ ें दቦኌ-त सी एवं डी ें उ्ቤेखिखत भूनि एवं का(cid:9) भाቇኋ ए] (cid:22)ी] वादी के एक ा्ቔ (cid:27)वत्व का है ? क्या वादप्ቔ के सा(cid:28) संल्ሿ अ(cid:9)ुसूची& अ ें लाल खण्ड ई] एफ] जी] एच] आई] जे (cid:27)याही से दቦኌ-त भू& एवं ्ቚतितवादी एवं के & वादी] की ाता के संयु्ሹ (cid:27)वानि त्व की भूनि है ? क ांक 2 क्या वादप्ቔ के सा(cid:28) संल्ሿ अ(cid:9)ुसूची& अ ें ई] एफ] जे एवं के भाቇኋ पर लाल (cid:27)याही से जी] एच] आई] खण्ड के सं(cid:22)ंध ें ्ቚतितवादी ्ቅ ांक 1 द-ा(cid:12)ये ቇኋये भू& के प्ቌ ें नि(cid:9)ष्पानिदत ्ቛारा ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 7 2 अतिधकारिरता निवही(cid:9) हो(cid:9)े से -ून्य है ? क्या वादप्ቔ के सा(cid:28) संल्ሿ अ(cid:9)ुसूची& अ ें ई] एफ] जे एवं के भाቇኋ पर लाल (cid:27)याही से जी] एच] आई] ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 1 खण्ड पर वादी] द-ा(cid:12)ये ቇኋये भू& एवं ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 2 के सा(cid:28) संयु्ሹ (cid:27)वा ी हो(cid:9)े की घो्ቧ2ा ्ቚा् कर(cid:9)े का अतिधकारी है ? क्या वादप्ቔ के सा(cid:28) संल्ሿ अ(cid:9)ुसूची& (cid:22) ें उ्ቤेखिखत निपता लख(cid:9)लाल सो(cid:9)ी ्ቛारा संपखिI को वादी के अप(cid:9)ी (cid:27)वयं की आ द(cid:9)ी से ्ቚतितवादी क ांक 1 के (cid:9)ा पर dz; से 10 निवकयप्ቔ निद(cid:9)ांक 04-03-2016 निकया ቇኋया (cid:28)ा ? 3 4 5 6 7 ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं ्ቚ ाशि2त (cid:9)हीं 13. According to the plaintiff, one Yadast Nama (Ex.P/1) was executed on 13.04.1989 amongst defendant No.1-Vidya Devi Saraf, Durga Bai and him. For ready reference, contents of Yadast Nama is reproduced herein as under :- याददाश्त(cid:9)ा ा “ह सभी राधेश्या सराफ आ० लख(cid:9)लाल, निव्ቕादेवी पቝኌत्(cid:9) जቇኋ्ቐा(cid:28) ्ቚसाद सभी नि(cid:9)वासी ቇኋोंड़पारा लख(cid:9)लाल, दुቇኋा(cid:12) (cid:22)ाई सो(cid:9)ी पቝኌत्(cid:9) नि(cid:22)लासपुर ०्ቚ० के है जो आपस ें रिरश्तेदार हैं। ह लोቇኋों (cid:9)े लቌኚ 2 कश्यप आ० जቇኋ्ቐा(cid:28) कश्यप नि(cid:9)वासी सा(cid:9)ቇኋंज वाले से उसकी जु(cid:9)ा सपुर ቝኌ(cid:27)(cid:28)त खसरा (cid:9)ं0 284/1 रक(cid:22)ा 0-50 तिडस० भू ी को खरीद(cid:9)े नि(cid:22)ला का सौदा रूपये 50,000/- पचास हजार रूपये ें निकया है व करी(cid:22) 6,000/- छै हजार रूपया रजिज(cid:27)ट्र ी खच(cid:12) लቇኋेቇኋा रजिज(cid:27)ट्र ी ह सभी की सह तित से निव ्ቕादेवी के (cid:9)ा से कराई जायेቇኋी । उ्ሹ ज ी(cid:9) खरीद(cid:9)े ें राधेया सराफ 23,000/- तेईस हजार रूपये अप(cid:9)ी ज ी(cid:9) खरीदी नि(cid:22)्ቅी के धंधे की क ाई से लቇኋा र हा है। ्ቦी ती दुቇኋा(cid:12)(cid:22)ाई सो(cid:9)ी अप(cid:9)े परिरवार की क ाई से 23,000/- तेईस हजार रूपया लቇኋा रही है। व निव्ቕादेवी सो(cid:9)ी अप(cid:9)े पतित की क ाई से 10,000/- दस हजार रूपया लቇኋा रही है। उ्ሹ पूरी 0-50 तिडस० ज ी(cid:9) की रजिज(cid:27)ट्र ी हो(cid:9)े के (cid:22)ाद राधेश्या एवं दुቇኋा(cid:12) देवी पांच हजार वቇኋ(cid:12)फ q ट सा (cid:9)े की ज ी(cid:9) एवं निव्ቕा देवी ती(cid:9) हजार पांच- 13 वቇኋ(cid:12)फ q ट ज ी(cid:9) पीछे की अप(cid:9)े अप(cid:9)े का(cid:9) (cid:22)(cid:9)ा(cid:9)े के खिलये ले लेंቇኋे। इस ्ቚकार -े्ቧ् (cid:22)ची ज ी(cid:9) ें ती(cid:9)ों का (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र एक निह(cid:27)सा रहेቇኋा। उ ्ሹ -े्ቧ (cid:22)ची ज ी(cid:9) ज(cid:22) भी (cid:22)ेची जावेቇኋी ती(cid:9)ों की सह तित से (cid:22)ेची जावेቇኋी। व उसके पायदे ें ती(cid:9)ों का (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र निह(cid:27)सा रहेቇኋा। ज(cid:22) तक नि(cid:22)के ቇኋी ती(cid:9)ों का (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र (cid:22)रा(cid:22)र हक निह(cid:27)सा रहेቇኋा। ज ी(cid:9) (cid:9)हीं इसखिलये आज निद(cid:9)ांक 13-4-1989 को ቇኋवाहों के स ्ቌ ह सभी की आपसी सह तित से याददाश्त (cid:9)ा ा ें (cid:27)(cid:28)ा(cid:9) नि(cid:22)लासपुर ०्ቚ० ें नि(cid:9)ष्पानिदत कर अप(cid:9)े अप(cid:9)े ह्ा्ቌर कर निदये ता निक स(cid:9)द रहे और व्ሹ जरूरत पर का आवे । " 14. As per the plaintiff, the sale deeds (Ex.D/23 and D/24) were executed on 17.04.1989 and 09.06.1989 respectively after this Yadast Nama, which was executed on 13.04.1989 but it is clear that in both the sale deeds there is no mention of Yadast Nama (Ex.P/1). 15. Plaintiff Radhe Shyam Saraf admitted in para 31 of his cross- examination that as per order dated 16.05.2002, name of Durga Bai was duly registered on the said portion of the suit land and even today the name of Durga Bai is registered on the said portion of the suit land. He has constructed a house on 5000 sq.ft. of the suit land. He has constructed it from his own income. It is correct to say that 20 feet road has been left from the suit land on the north side of his house. It is correct to say that Durga Bai’s house is built adjacent to said 20 feet road. He cannot tell that when Durga Bai got the said house constructed. It is correct to say that Durga Devi has passed away and her son Santosh has been made as defendant No.2. Further, in para 39 he admitted that the entire property of suit Schedule-A is in the name of Vidya Devi and diversion has been done in her name. Today, he cannot tell when the diversion of the lands of the suit 14 Schedule-A took place. It is correct to say that the entire land rent (lagaan) of the suit Schedule-A property is paid. He also admitted that the map of the house built in the suit Schedule – A is approved in the name of Vidya Devi. It was also admitted by him that the property tax of the suit Schedule-A property is paid in the name of Vidya Devi. He himself stated that the property tax is paid by him. Today, he cannot tell that how much property tax is determined for the suit Schedule-A house. 16. Further, in para 48, the plaintiff has admitted that the land in the suit schedule 'A' was registered in two parts. It is correct to say that in the Yadashtnama (Ex.P./1), there is no mention of the registration of the land in the suit Schedule - A being done in two parts. According to the Yadashtnama (Ex.P/1), the amount mentioned to be given to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Durga Bai, mother of defendant No.2, the said amount had been collected before execution of Yadashtnama (Ex.P/1), but the plaintiff stated that the said amount was kept with each one of them. He also admitted that he and defendant No.1 reside together. He denied that money was kept together. The plaintiff himself states that he had kept his money separately. 17. The learned trial Court also appreciated all oral evidence and all documents filed by both the parties and recorded that Yadashtnama (Ex.P/1) is an unregistered document and it is not a family settlement because mother of defendant No.2 Durga Bai is not a family member. It is also apparent that defendant Nos. 7 to 10 purchased the land from defendant No.1, who was 15 registered owner at the time of sale deed and the learned trial Court rightly recorded its finding that the defendant Nos. 7 to 10, after purchasing this land, are in possession of their respective land on which house with boundary wall has been constructed and the sale deeds executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos. 7 to 10, for which declaration has been sought to be declared null and void, the said sale deeds have not been produced in the case. 18. The plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that the disputed land is a joint property of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Durga Soni. It is also clear from jewelry bills (Ex.D/35 to D/36) and copy of gift deed (Ex.D/39) that Vidya Devi had purchased the land from her jewelry and gifted the land by way of gift deed dated 04.12.2015 (Ex.D/39). Thus, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove this fact that he is joint owner of Kh. No.284/1, area 50 decimal with defendant No.1 and Durga Soni, mother of defendant No.2. The plaintiff has also failed to prove any relevancy of Yadasht Nama (Ex.P/1). The plaintiff has sought relief for cancellation of gift deed (Ex.D/39) and declaration of joint ownership of disputed land but it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership on disputed land and defendants have proved this fact that defendant No. 1 - Vidya Devi is owner of disputed land and she gifted her land to her son defendant No.6 -Purshottam Saraf. The learned trial Court having minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence including all revenue records filed by both the parties 16 has rightly recorded its finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case and decided all the issues against him and in favour of defendants. 19. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court warranting any interference by this Court. 20. The appeal is thus dismissed. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2025.01.17 16:17:58 +0530
Arguments
07 to 10, all are heirs of Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni. According to the plaint averments, Laxman Kashyap had entered into an oral agreement to sale of his 0.50 Acre land bearing Khasra No.- 284/1 situated at Kashyap Colony, Mauja- Juna Bilaspur with plaintiff, defendant No. 01 & mother of defendant No.-02 Late Smt. Durga Bai Soni for a consideration of Rs. 56,000/-. According to the said agreement, buyers executed a Yaddashtnama on 13.04.1989 in between them, by which they had decided that plaintiff would contribute 23,000/-, defendant No.01 would contribute 10,000/- & Smt. Durga Bai Soni would contribute 23,000/- for consideration amount 50,000/- & registry expense 6,000/-, & registry of sale deed would be executed in name of defendant No.1. They (buyers) had also decided that after registry, plaintiff & defendant No.01 would construct houses on 5,000 - 5,000 Sq. Ft. of front land, Smt. Durga Devi Soni would construct house on 3,000 Sq. Ft. on back-side land and rest of the land would be divided equally amongst all buyers. It was also agree between buyers that remaining land would be sold only after the consent of all buyers and the consideration would be divided equally between them. It was also pleaded in the plaint that according to Yaddasht-Nama, above-mentioned buyers bought 0.25 Acre out of Khasra No.-284/1 for consideration of Rs. 25,000/- on 17.04.1989, and then on 09.06.1986 bought 0.25 Acre out of Khasra No.-284/1 through registered sale deed for consideration of Rs. 25,000/- in the name of defendant No.01, which was registered in the revenue 4 records in the name of defendant No.01 in Khasra No.-204/8 & 204/9 and after diversion, sheet No. 12, Plot No. 438, Block No. 6 was corrected in the name of Vidya Devi. It was also pleaded that as per Yaddasht-Nama, plaintiff constructed a house as shown in A, B, C, D in schedule-A from his own income, and with the consent of all buyers, in the north side of his house, 2,000 Sq. Ft. land was lying vacant for extrication (nistaari), adjacent to which, Smt. Durga Devi Soni constructed residential house, in the east direction of plaintiff’s house, 3,000 Sq. Ft. land was given to defendant No. 01, in which she did not construct house and the said land is also lying vacant. Residential house constructed by plaintiff is currently registered on record as House No.- 25/230, Geetanjali Nagar, Present Ward No.-29, Gully No.-05. With the consent of all the buyers, the land E. F. G. H. I. J. K. marked in red ink in Schedule-A was kept vacant. It was also pleaded in the plaint that both the registered sale deeds were executed in the name of defendant No.1 due to which she, in instigation of her other children, continuously tried to sell the property without consent of other buyers, thus the plaintiff had lodged police report on 30.10.2015. In the meanwhile, defendant No.-01 executed registered Yaddasht- Nama in favor of Smt. Durga Devi Soni for her part on 13/10/2003, which was registered in revenue records as Khasra No.-284/27 Area-0.10 Acre, and after diversion, it became Sheet No.-12, Block No.-06, Plot No.-438/4, Area- 4113.21 Sq. Ft. But till date, land as well as residential house constructed by plaintiff 5 is registered in name of defendant No.-01. Since defendatn No.1 is mother of plaintiff, he never pressurize his mother to register his own name on the property. As per Yaddasht-Nama & consideration amount paid by plaintiff, defendant No.1 & Smt. Durga Devi, suit property is jointly owned and possessed by all the three. Without consent of plaintiff & defendant No.1, defendant No.-01 executed 02 registered sale deeds dated 04/03/2016 in favor of defendant Nos. 07 to 10 out of land shown from E to K in Schedule-A. 3. It was also pleaded in the plaint that apart from above-mentioned part of facts, Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, father of plaintiff, sold 0.03 Acre (1176.25 Sq. Ft.) land from his own income in name of his wife defendant No.01, which is Schedule-B. Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni constructed a shop in 750 Sq. Ft. of the said land from his own income. After death of Late Shri Lakhanlal Soni, said property must be divided in between all the sons, daughters and wife, defendant Nos. 01, 03 to 06 but suddenly on 04/12/2015, defendant No.1 executed a registered gift deed in favor of defendant No.6, which is void-ab-initio. Thus, the plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration of title over A, B, C, D land & house shown in Schedule-A, declaration of joint title along with defendant Nos. 1, 2 over open area of E to K shown in Schedule-A, along with challenging the registered gift deed shown in Schedule- B executed in favor of defendant No.06 and declaration of 1/6 part over suit property of Schedule-B, against the defendants, Schedule-A & B are part of plaint as well as 6 judgment of trial court. 4. The defendant No.2 filed his written statement accepting all the facts & averments of the plaint filed by plaintiff and prayed before trial court to allow the suit of appellant. 5. The defendant Nos. 01, 03 to 06 filed their written statements and denied the plaint averments except admitted facts & prayed to reject the plaint of plaintiff. 6. The defendant Nos. 07 to 10 also filed their written statements and denied the plaint averments. 7. The learned trial court on the basis of plaint averments and written statements, vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error of law and facts because the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was without any proper justification and too contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsel further