1 CGHC010078382023 2026:CGHC:26706-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 38 of 2023 • Vaibhav Agrawal S/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Janjgir District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present Resident of Mangal Bhawan, Link Road Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (Plaintiff) versus 1. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Mangatu Ram Agrawal Aged About 62 Years R/o Main Road Janjgir, Tahsil- Janjgir, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- District Collector, Janjgir, District: Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 30.6.2026 Per, Sachin Singh Rajput , Judge 1. This is the first appeal filed under Section 96 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2022 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2019 which was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit properties are comprised with Khasra No. 1196/2, area 0.177 hectare, Khasra No. 1197/2, area 0.081 hectare and Khasra No. 1201/3, area 0.045 hectare, situated at Village- Banari and Khasra No.826, area 0.7290 hectare situated at village- Lacchanpur and a plot situated behind Magneto Mall at Signature Home, Raipur and Khasra No. 3722/4, area 0.014 hectare land situated at Janjgir and a house constructed over back. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of 1/4th title over the suit property, injunction and separate possession after partition of the suit property was filed, as per pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are governed by Hindu Law and they are joint Hindu family and the biological mother of the plaintiff namely Madhu Agrawal has passed away and he is the second child of his biological mother and father. After death of the mother of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff had married with one Jyoti Agrawal. Biological father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are real brothers, as the defendant No. 1 was not blessed with the son, he requested to the biological father of the plaintiff for adoption of the plaintiff with the consent of the grandfather and other family members, adoption ceremony was organized in the house of biological father of the plaintiff on 10.03.2002 religious rituals for the purposes were performed for the peace and he was given an adoption to defendant No. 1 and his wife Usha Agrawal and at the time of adoption, the plaintiff was aged about 14 years and was unmarried. Thus, plaintiff is the adopted son of defendant No. 1 and thereafter 3 adoption deed was executed on 06.09.2002 and the same was also registered. The biological father of the plaintiff resides and is engaged in business at Bilaspur whereas, the plaintiff supported the business of defendant No. 1 at Janjgir. After graduating from Government College, he has taken taken over the business of defendant No. 1. Later on, he went to obtain M.B.A. degree from Mumbai University and thereafter while conducting successful business with defendant No.1 by the joint income of the family, the suit property was purchased. On account of payment to different firms in the contractor business, the defendant No. 1 faced the dispute with the plaintiff and started avoiding him and on many occasions assaulted him and filthily abused him. The adopted mother of the plaintiff suffered from cancer and she was treated from different hospitals by the plaintiff, she was taken care of by the plaintiff and at present she is well. In the marriage of the daughters of defendant No. 1, he has performed all the rituals being a brother. It has been further pleaded for the last two years, defendant No. 1 has treated the plaintiff with extreme disregard, intentionally disrespected him, ignored him and thrown him out of the house. The business was running in the name of defendant No. 1 from the very beginning. After the plaintiff was thrown out by the defendant No.1, he somehow managing his lifestyle at Bilaspur, and is having no business. After the adoption, he became the member of joint Hindu family and suit property was purchased from the family income earned by the joint Hindu family. Thus, on the basis of above broad pleadings, seeking above stated reliefs, the suit was filed. 3. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, it was pleaded that when the plaintiff came to know that the wife of defendant No.1 is 4 suffering from cancer and is being treated at Raipur, the plaintiff denied them as parents and on 29th May, 2013, the plaintiff sent along with his biological father at Bilaspur and presently residing there. After the death of biological mother of the plaintiff, the biological father of plaintiff had married to Jyoti Agrawal and on seeing the neglectful behavior of his father and stepmother, the defendant No. 1 took the responsibility of study of the plaintiff and sent him to outside, he came back in the year 2011 and started working with other contractors for two years. Plaintiff filed income tax returns and the earning is being given to his biological father. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1 never asked to biological father of the plaintiff for adoption rather for seeing the neglectful behaviour, he took the responsibility of studies of plaintiff or knowing that wife of defendant No. 1 is suffering from cancer, he started hating them and since 2013 residing with his biological father. It has been further pleaded that plaintiff has never supported in conduction of the business, no suit property was purchased by the earning of joint Hindu family, the properties at village- Lacchanpur and at village- Banari was purchased by defendant No. 1 from his own source of income and during the period, the plaintiff was studying, there is no flat in the name of defendant No. 1 at Raipur, the property of village- Janjgir was purchased by defendant No. 1 at the time of plaintiff was not born. In order to grab his self acquired property of the defendant No. 1, the suit is filed. The marriage of the plaintiff was performed by his biological father at Bilaspur on 11.12.2013 and therein, the name of Pawan Kumar Agrawal (biological father) and mother Jyoti Agrawal was printed on marriage cards. On 23.04.2019, the plaintiff along with his mother- Jyoti Agrawal, father- Pawan Kumar 5 Agrawal and the wife- Niru, stayed overnight at the house of defendant No. 1’s brother Kishore, claiming to want to see the mother of defendant No. 1. On the next day, the plaintiff along with his father-in- law, parents and with others tried to enter the house of defendant No. 1 and forcefully tried to take possession from him, when defendant No. 1 raised objection, the plaintiff along with his acquaintance went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the defendant No. 1, however, they went away from the police station to avoid any registration of any offence as their mistakes were found. Thus, suit may be dismissed. 4. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues, which are reproduced herein as under:- S.No. Question of law Conclusion 01 Whether the suit property is joint Hindu family property? “not proved" 02 Whether the plaintiff being the adopted son of Defendant No. 1 is the owner of 1/4th share in the suit property? “not proved" 03 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to separate possession of the suit property by partitioning his 1/4th share? “not proved" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated 21-12-2022 passed by the learned trial Court is purely unjustified, illegal and contrary to the law and therefore it is liable to be set-aside. Learned Trial Court ought to have properly appreciated the cross-examination of P.W-2- Shiv Kumar Agrawal, 6 although he was confronted with the photographs of the adoption ceremony, his photograph did not appear in them and a suggestion was put to him that he was not present at the time of the adoption ceremony, however, he denied the said suggestion. P.W-2 further denied the suggestion that Jyoti was not present at the ceremony and also denied that the plaintiff had been residing at Bilaspur from that time. He deposed that after the death of the mother of the plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 expressed his desire to adopt a son Vaibhav. Consequently, Pawan Kumar requested his brother to give his consent for the adoption of his son. He further stated that on 10.03.2002, the adoption ceremony was solemnized at the house of Mangatu Ram, the plaintiff's father, in the presence of the family members. According to the statement, Pawan Kumar had given the plaintiff in adoption to Ashok and his wife and thereafter a community feast (Bhoj) was organized, at which he was present and he also stated that the deed of adoption was executed on the same occasion. The plaintiff proved his case by examining himself and Shiv Kumar Agrawal (P.W-2). Although the defendant No. 1 stated that after the death of the biological mother of the plaintiff, the biological father of the plaintiff remarried. He further admitted that considering the conduct of the stepmother of the plaintiff and the circumstances prevailing in the family of the biological father, the Defendant No.1 assumed responsibility for the plaintiff's upbringing and education. The Defendant No.1 examined himself, Kishore Kumar Agrawal and other witnesses, all of whom categorically deposed regarding the execution of the deed of adoption. During his cross- examination, Ashok Kumar Agrawal admitted that his father was alive at the time of the execution of the adoption deed (Ex. P/7). He further 7 stated that his father passed away in the year 2014 and his mother died in the year 2020. He also admitted that his parents were alive on the date of the adoption ceremony and that the name of Mangatu Ram was mentioned in the card. Bhagirathi was also examined in support of the case of the plaintiff. However, the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, illegally and erroneously dismissed the suit. The findings of the learned Trial Court that the plaintiff was unable to prove the case, despite the fact that the plaintiff had duly discharged his burden of proof by leading cogent oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim, yet the same was not appreciated in its proper perspective. Hence, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal be allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree, contending that the learned Trial Court meticulously appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record and arrived at well-reasoned findings based on the material placed before it. The impugned judgment is well reasoned, in accordance with law and does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity requiring interference. It was, therefore, prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. The appellant/plaintiff came up with the pleadings that the suit property 8 was purchased from the funds generated by the business of the joint Hindu family. According to his pleadings, he was taken into adoption by the Defendant No. 1 and after completion of his studies, he started helping in running the business of Defendant No. 1 and it was on account of the funds so generated by their joint efforts, the suit properties were purchased. The Issue No.1 was framed by the learned Trial Court is to whether the suit property is of the joint Hindu family, whereas Issue No. 2 is in respect of 1/4th share of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff being an adopted son and Issue No. 3 was in respect of partition of the suit property to 1/4th share and possession over the property. The burden to prove these issues were upon the plaintiff. 9. The learned Trial Court on assessment of the evidence material available on record gave a finding that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the Defendant No. 1, however, he was still required to prove the Issue Nos. 1 to 3 by cogent and reliable evidence. In his evidence before the learned Trial Court, the plaintiff stated that after he was taken into adoption by the Defendant No. 1, he was living with him and used to provide support and help in the business of Defendant No. 1 and from the funds generated in the business of joint Hindu family, the suit property was purchased. The business of civil construction and contractorship runs in the name of M/s. Ashok Kumar Agrawal. 10. Learned Trial Court finds that though the plaintiff submitted the income tax return from the year 2008-09, however his source of income was from the contractorship. Further observation was made by learned Trial Court that till 2008-09, the plaintiff has not filed any income tax return. 9 The plaintiff has also admitted that the house in which he is residing was purchased in the year 1976 and that the house at Janjgir was constructed in the year 1991. His admission is also to the fact that his name is neither recorded in the sale deeds, nor is there any recital therein stating that any part of the sale consideration was paid by him, nor was any cheque issued by him. From the evidence of the plaintiff, it is quite vivid that some of the suit property was purchased by the Defendant No. 1 much prior to the plaintiff being adopted by the Defendant No. 1. 11. The Defendant No. 1 in his evidence categorically deposed that the suit property was purchased by him from his own earnings, the plaintiff has never supported/helped in the business. He further deposed that since 2007, the plaintiff had been residing in Mumbai and Indore and since 2013 onwards he has been residing at Bilaspur. From the evidence of this witness, it is also apparent that the suit property situated at Village- Banari was purchased on 27.01.2017 & on 16.03.2019 the suit property situated at Village- Lacchanpur was purchased on 28.05.2007 and the suit property situated at Village- Janjgir was purchased on 16.04.1976 and the house thereon was constructed in the year 1991, prior to the birth of the plaintiff. 12. Learned Trial Court after assessment of the evidence particularly seeing that no documentary evidence was available on record to suggest that the suit property was purchased by Defendant No. 1 from the funds generated by the business of the joint Hindu family. Taking into consideration Exs. D/3 to D/6, the registered sale deeds, it was found that the said suit properties were purchased by Defendant No. 1 10 by paying the sale consideration and that his name was also found duly recorded in the revenue records. As the plaintiff could not prove that the suit property was purchased from the funds generated by the earnings of joint Hindu family, the Issue No. 1 cannot be decided in his favour as he is not entitled to any share in the suit property. 13. So far as Issue Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, though learned counsel for the plaintiff tried to persuade that the finding of Issue No. 1 is perverse to the record and based on an improper appreciation of the evidence, however, from the evidence of plaintiff, itself it is quite vivid that some of the suit property was purchased prior to his birth and the suit properties which were purchased after his birth, could not be proved by the plaintiff to have been purchased from the funds generated by the business of joint Hindu family. Though, by way of oral evidence, the plaintiff stated that he helped and supported the Defendant No.1 in running the business which has been denied and the sale-deeds of the suit properties do not disclose any such recital that the plaintiff has in any manner contributed in payment of the sale consideration either full or in part. Some income tax return was also filed by the plaintiff to show his income, which discloses that he earned income from the work of a contractor. However, this return does not indicate that he, in any manner, supported/helped the Defendant No. 1 in the business so as to establish that it was a joint Hindu family business, rather, it is evident that from the year 2008–09 onwards, the plaintiff has not filed any income tax return. 14. The learned Trial Court, while deciding Issue Nos. 1 to 3, discussed and deliberated upon the evidence of the Plaintiff as well as Defendant 11 No. 1 in detail and gave its findings regarding the aforesaid issues. Thus, the findings of the Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality warranting interference with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, the same are hereby affirmed. 15. The appeal being meritless, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 16. Let a decree be drawn accordingly. 17. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL