JUDGMENT : 1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 (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 & 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 & 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. 4. It has been stated that from beginning, the plaintiff was working in Government Department, posted at Village-Karkona, Post-Patna, Tahsil-Baikunthpur, District-Koriya, residing with his family. The land admeasuring 0.012 Hectare from the suit property which has been given to the plaintiff on family partition, the plaintiff has constructed a house and residing there. It has been contended that Pancho Bai and their children are creating dispute and threatening the plaintiff that they will not give share to the plaintiff in the ancestral property. The land admeasuring 0.012 Hectare from the suit property which has been given to the plaintiff on family partition, the plaintiff has constructed a house and residing there. It has been contended that Pancho Bai and their children are creating dispute and threatening the plaintiff that they will not give share to the plaintiff in the ancestral property. The defendant along with his sons and Pancho Bai had made attempt to sale, mortgage and transfer of the suit property. The suit property is ancestral property, which cannot be transferred without permission of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has issued a notice to the defendants for partition, but the defendants have given reply to the notice contending that the suit property is ancestral property, therefore, it has necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit. It has also been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share of the suit property. The plaint was amended and certain new facts have been added contending that the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 has granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property which is about 7 acres of land treating it to be ancestral property. Defendant No. 1 has given on rent and is earning Rs. 20,000/- yearly, as such, petitioner being ¼th share of the said ancestral property, therefore, he is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- yearly from the property. The suit is within limitation and the plaintiff has prayed for grant of declaration, partition and permanent injunction of the suit property. The plaintiff has prayed that the suit property be declared as ancestral property and the defendant has no right to sell or transfer the same by any other mode to any institution, therefore, permanent injunction to this effect may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been prayed that the plaintiff is also entitled to get ¼th share of the property mentioned in Schedule-A, therefore, his ¼th share may kindly be granted. 5. Defendant No. 1, 3 to 5 have filed their written statement denying the plaint’s averment contending that defendant No. 1 has performed marriage with Pancho Bai as per Churi custom, which is prevailing before enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, she is legally wedded wife. 5. Defendant No. 1, 3 to 5 have filed their written statement denying the plaint’s averment contending that defendant No. 1 has performed marriage with Pancho Bai as per Churi custom, which is prevailing before enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, she is legally wedded wife. It has been contended that only agricultural land situated at Village-Kachna is ancestral property of defendant No. 1, the land situated at Village-Khamhardih has been purchased by him through his own income. The Defendant No. 1 was ready to purchase the land situated at Khamhardih from Vitavanbai & Kundan Bai Yadav, but being a government servant and posted at Patthalgaon, he could not attend the office of Registrar for registration of sale-deed as such requested his father to execute the sale deed, whereas the entire sale consideration has been paid by defendant No. 1 himself. It has also been contended that the land situated at Village-Borid and & Bhilai have been purchased by the plaintiff from his own income and Stree Dhan received by Pancho Bai, therefore, the property mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint is not the ancestral property. The plaintiff has demanded his share from ancestral property of Khamhardih, on his request the Defendant No. 1 has given the land situated at village Kachna, which has been purchased by defendant No. 1 from his own income. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has already received the property of Village-Kachna in place of agricultural land of Khamhardihin in his share, therefore, he cannot claim for any share on any of the self acquired property of defendant No. 1 and prayed for dismissal for the suit. 6. The learned trial Court on pleadings of the parties has framed as many as eight issues. The relevant issues for deciding the present lis between the plaintiff and defendants are as under:- (i) Whether the property annexed at Schedule-A of the plaint is Joint Hindu property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has already got 1/4th share of ancestral property from defendant No. 1, 3 to 5 and is in possession of the plaintiff? 7. The plaintiff to substantiate the averment made in the plaint has examined himself as PW/1 and exhibited documents Postal Receipt (Ex. P/1), Acknowledgement (Ex. P/2), Service of notice (Ex. P/3), Reply of notice (Ex. P/4), Partition-deed with Map (Ex. P/5), Tax Receipt of Municipal Corporation (Ex. P/6), B-1 of Village-Kachna (Ex. 7. The plaintiff to substantiate the averment made in the plaint has examined himself as PW/1 and exhibited documents Postal Receipt (Ex. P/1), Acknowledgement (Ex. P/2), Service of notice (Ex. P/3), Reply of notice (Ex. P/4), Partition-deed with Map (Ex. P/5), Tax Receipt of Municipal Corporation (Ex. P/6), B-1 of Village-Kachna (Ex. P/7), Panchsala Khasra (Ex. P/8), Village-Bhilai, Bandobast (Ex. P/9), B-1 of Village-Bhilai (Ex. P/10), Land of Pancho Bai situated at Bhilai (Ex. P/11), Bandobast of Village-Borid (Ex. P/12), B-1 of land belonging to Pancho Bai situated at Borid (P/13), Khasra Panchsala of land belonging to Pancho Bai (Ex. P/14), B-1 received from Patwari of Village-Borid (Ex. P/15), Panchsala Khasra of Village-Borid (Ex. P/16), Certified copy of Ishtgasha (Ex. P/17), Police information with regard to cognizable offence (Ex. P/18), complaint before Superintendent of Police (Ex. P/19), complaint sent to Superintendent of Police (Ex. P/20) & certified copy of registered sale-deed (Ex. P/21). 8. The Defendants have examined Nityanand as DW/1, Dharamlal as DW/2, Tularam as DW/3, Noharlal as DW/4 and no cross examination to the witnesses was done. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, materials on record has dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 which is being challenged in this First Appeal under Section 96 of the C.P.C. before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate documents regarding the suit property shown in the Schedule A as ancestral property. He would further submit that the trial Court though recorded a finding that appellant/plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share of the joint Hindu family property but has committed illegality in not treating the entire suit property as property belongs joint Hindu family. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court though has recorded its finding that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share of the property on the other hand has refused for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant, which is illegal against the law and would pray that the instant first appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court may kindly be set aside. 10. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to finding that entire property does not belong to joint Hindu family is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. Even the plaintiff has not discharged his burden to prove that the property was purchased from nucleus of joint Hindu family property, thus, the appeal has no merit and liable to be dismissed with costs. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost satisfaction. 12. From the appreciation of evidence adduced before the trial Court it is quite clear that the plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that his ancestral village is Village-Kachna and also admitted that his grandfather's land is situated at Village-Kachna. He also admitted that except village-Kachna, no other property is in the name of his grandfather. The plaintiff has also admitted that in the house where he is residing at Village-Khamhardih has been constructed in the land which he has received in partition from his father. He also admitted that the land of Village-Borid has been purchased in the name of Tularam. Nityanand (DW-1)/Defendant No. 4 was examined on behalf of defendants and he was not subjected to cross-examination. Similarly, the other witness namely defendant No. 3-Dharam Lal (DW-2), Tularam (DW-3) and Shakuntala (DW-5) were examined, but no cross-examination was done. 13. From bare perusal of statement of Dharamlal, who was not subjected to cross-examination by the plaintiff, it is quite vivid that the land situated at village-Kachna is ancestral property and rest of the property has been purchased from own income of Tularam. Tularam has also stated that he has purchased the land at village-Borid and Bhilai from Stree Dhan of Pancho Bai and from his own income. He has categorically stated that the lands situated at village-Bhilai and Borid are not the ancestral property and when the plaintiff has requested for partition, he has given the land situated at village-Kachna in place of the land situated at Khamhardih admeasuring 0.012 Hectare, wherein he is residing with his family. The plaintiff has already received his share in partition. 14. Learned trial Court while appreciating Ex. The plaintiff has already received his share in partition. 14. Learned trial Court while appreciating Ex. P/10 to P/16 has recorded its finding that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence with regard to generation of income to establish that the property has been purchased from nucleus of the ancestral property though in Ex. P/10 to P/16 name of Late Pancho Bai and defendant No. 1 have been recorded. Defendant No. 1 has also stated in his evidence that he was in Government Service, as such, it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to establish that the suit property mentioned in the Schedule A is purchased from income of the ancestral property. No such evidence was adduced by the plaintiff, therefore, issue No. 1 has been decided against the plaintiff. 15. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 whether plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share on the suit property has held that the plaintiff has to prove which land belongs to ancestral property, therefore, issue No. 3 has also been decided with modification that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/4th share of the ancestral property only, but since plaintiff is unable to establish that which property has been purchased from income generated from the ancestral property has rightly dismissed the suit. 16. By analysing the pleadings made by the parties, evidence adduced before the trial Court, it is quite vivid that the defendant No.1 has not purchased the suit property from income of ancestral property. It is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement filed by the defendants, it has been specifically pleaded that these properties have been purchased from Stree Dhan of Pancho Bai and own income of defendant No.1 and this is self acquired property, which has not been rebutted by adducing cogent evidence by the plaintiff. 17. It is well settled that the burden is on the person who alleges existence of Hindu Undivided Family to prove the same. Proof is required not only with respect to jointness of family but also with respect to fact that property concerned belongs to joint Hindu Family, unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of joint Hindu Family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. It cannot be said that it is joint Hindu family property. It cannot be said that it is joint Hindu family property. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Through Legal Representatives) v. Purushottam & others (2020) 6 SCC 387 , has held at paragraph 13, 21 & 28 as under:- “13. Normally, an HUF can only comprise of all the family members with the head of the family being karta. Some property has to be the nucleus for this joint family. There is cleavage of opinion as to whether two brothers of a larger group can form a joint family. But assuming that such a joint family could have been formed by Madhav Prashad and Umrao Lal the burden lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove that the two of them joined together to form an HUF. To prove this, they will have to not only show jointness of the property but also jointness of family and jointness of living together. 21. An admission made by a party is only a piece of evidence and not conclusive proof of what is stated therein. It is in this light that we have to examine the admission made by Hari Ram and his brothers while filing the written statement to the suit filed by Seth Budhmal. In paragraph 6 the averment was that the defendants constituted trading Joint Hindu Family. It is obvious that the admission was with regard to a trading family and not HUF. In view of the law cited above, it is clear that not only jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus. In our opinion, this has not been proved in the present case. Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family. As far as paragraph 8 is concerned in our view there is no clear-cut admission. The allegation made was that the minors were represented by defendant nos. 1-3, who were head of their respective branches. Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family. As far as paragraph 8 is concerned in our view there is no clear-cut admission. The allegation made was that the minors were represented by defendant nos. 1-3, who were head of their respective branches. In reply to this it was stated that defendant nos.1-3 were neither the head or the karta, nor the mortgage transaction was made in that capacity. This admission cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission of there being a joint family. 28. As far as the agricultural lands are concerned the trial court decreed the suit in respect of the agricultural lands on the basis that Madhav Prashad and his brother Umrao Lal and their successors constituted an HUF. The said lands having been bought out of the funds of the HUF would be treated to be the property of the HUF, even though they may have been entered in the name of any other person. In view of the above discussion, and the fact that we have held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there is an HUF, we are not inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court.” 18. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Adiveppa & others v. Bhimappa & another (2017) 9 SCC 586 , has held at paragraph 19 to 23 as under:- “19. It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property. (See - Mulla, Hindu Law, 22nd Edition Article 23 "Presumption as to co-parcenary and self acquired property"- pages 346 and 347). 20. In our considered opinion, the legal presumption of the suit properties comprising in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to be also the part and parcel of the ancestral one (Schedule ‘D’) could easily be drawn for want of any evidence of such properties being self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs. 20. In our considered opinion, the legal presumption of the suit properties comprising in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to be also the part and parcel of the ancestral one (Schedule ‘D’) could easily be drawn for want of any evidence of such properties being self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs. It was also for the reason that the plaintiffs themselves had based their case by admitting the existence of joint family nucleolus in respect of schedule ‘D’ properties and had sought partition by demanding 4/9th share. 21. In our considered opinion, it was, therefore, obligatory upon the plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ was not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. As held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove this material fact for want of any evidence. 22. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the concurrent findings of the two Courts, which in our opinion, are based on proper appreciation of oral evidence. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence. We are afraid we can appreciate the evidence at this state in the light of what we have held above. It is not permissible.” 19. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & others (2018) 7 SCC 646 , has held at paragraph 12 as under:- “12. It is settled that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father is an ancestral property. The essential feature of ancestral property, according to Mitakshara Law, is that the sons, grandsons, and great grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest and the rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth. The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. After partition, the property in the hands of the son will continue to be the ancestral property and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and is entitled to it by survivorship.” 20. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, materials on record, has given finding with regard to issue No. 1 that the land situated at village-Kachna has been recorded in the name of Tularam as per certificate given by the Patwari. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, materials on record, has given finding with regard to issue No. 1 that the land situated at village-Kachna has been recorded in the name of Tularam as per certificate given by the Patwari. Similarly, the trial Court has also appreciated the evidence with regard to Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/10 to P/16 which are revenue certificate given by the Patwari, but the Patwari has not been examined, therefore, this document cannot be relied upon. This finding cannot be called as perverse or contrary as it is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to call Patwari to prove the documents. In absence of the proof of the documents, the learned trial Court has rightly not relied upon the documents though it has been exhibited as merely exhibition of the document does not amount to admission of the document in the evidence, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is just and proper, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 21. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sitaram v. Ramcharan & others 1994 (1) MPJR 285 , has held as under:- “........In the second category of the cases, too, there should be an evidence that the copy issued by the Patwari is signed by him in his official capacity and the entry was made and the copy issued in the manner prescribed in the form provided by law. Therefore, the defendant was bound to lead evidence to prove that the entry in the Khasra was made according to the manner prescribed in the rules and also the copy so issued. Then only, under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, the inference could have been drawn that the document is genuine and not spurious. Section 35 of the Evidence Act requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document can be held to be admissible under this Section. (1) The document must be in the nature of an entry in any public or other official book, register or record, (2) it must state a fact in issue or a relevant fact and (3) the entry must be made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties or in performance of his duties especially enjoined by the law of the country in which the relevant entry is kept. (See State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, ( AIR 1983 SC 684 ) (supra). In the present case, there is no evidence that the entries were made by the Patwari in Khasras and Khatoni in the manner prescribed under the rules and he issued certified copies. In such circumstances, particularly when the evidence is of after the commencement of the lis, to eliminate the element of concoction, the Patwari ought to have been examined to prove the correctness of the entries made by him.” 22. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court has considered that the plaintiff is unable to establish that the suit property has been purchased from the income of ancestral property and has rightly dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is legal and justified warranting no interference by this Court. 23. Accordingly, the instant First Appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 24. A decree be drawn up accordingly.