1 2025:CGHC:16294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 71 of 2025 Ajay Krishna Sharma S/o Late Banshi Lal Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o. Second Floor, Sonal Tower, House No. -B/1, Agresen Chowk Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Yes Bank Limited Through Branch Manager, Link Road Branch Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Kalpana Sharma W/o Umakant Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o. Wireless Colony, Girja Chowk, Railway Colony, Quarter No. D. R. 2, 4/4 Post Office Tarbahar Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Vijay Krishna Sharma S/o. Late Banshi Lal Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o. Abhishek Vihar, House Phase-2, Quarter No. 163 C, Beside 36 Mall, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Uma Devi Sharma W/o Late Banshi Lal Sharma Aged About 60 Years R/o. Second Floor, Sonal Tower, Agresen Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Not noticed. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 07/04/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.04.08 17:39:07 +0530 2 Section 96 read with Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Seventh District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.71A/2019, whereby civil suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondents, has been dismissed. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. The case projected by the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 & 3 are siblings and defendant No.4 is their mother. The plaintiff is the elder son of defendant No.4 and on account of death of father of the plaintiff namely, Banshilal Sharma, huge amount was received to defendant No.4, which was deposited in her bank account. The plaintiff had also worked at various places and earned huge amount, which was also given to defendant No.4 by him. Ultimately, those amounts i.e. Rs.23 lakh was deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 in the form of FDR and Rs.80,000/- was deposited in the name of defendant No.2 in the bank of defendant No.1. Since these amounts were earned by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration of his title over the said FDR bearing No.052740100000449 worth of Rs.23 lakh, which was deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 and that he be also declared the title holder of amount of Rs.80,000/- , which was deposited in the name of defendant No.2 in Bank account No.052798800000967. 4. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed their written statement, in which they denied the pleadings of the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 supported the claim of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 remained ex-parte and did not file written statement. 5. The learned trial Court recorded evidence adduced by the parties and 3 after considering the same, dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff holding therein that, the plaintiff has failed to prove his source of income and he has also failed to prove that the alleged amount was deposited by him in the name of defendants No.2 & 3. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is the elder son of defendant No.4 and he was earning by working in various institutions. He further submits that all the money earned by him and the money received on account of death of his father, were deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 in the said FDR and in the bank account of defendant No.2, which has been proved by the plaintiff in his deposition and the same has also been supported by his mother Smt. Uma Devi (PW-2), despite that the learned trial Court dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the appeal may be admitted for hearing. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the record. 8. Claim of the plaintiff is that the amount deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 in the form of FDR and the amount deposited in the bank account of defendant No.2 were earned by him, but except oral version, he has not adduced any documents to prove aforesaid facts. 9. As per the plaintiff, he earned salary from various institutions, where he performed duty, but documents in this regard have neither been filed nor proved by him. Further, as per the facts projected by the plaintiff in the civil suit, it is a money suit, but the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of his title. Having considered the disputed facts that whether the plaintiff earned money or not, the plaintiff ought not have filed such suit for declaration of title. If it was the claim of the plaintiff that said amount deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 was earned by the plaintiff, then he ought to have filed 4 suit for recovery of amount. In this regard, he had to prove that those alleged amounts were earned by him and deposited in the name of defendants No.2 & 3 in their bank account/FDR, but the manner in which the civil suit has been drafted is misconceived. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal to be admitted for hearing, therefore, the same is dismissed at the motion stage. 11. A decree be drawn accordingly. 12. In view of above, pending IA(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini