K.S.LODHA,J. - (1.)THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the lefrred Addl District Judge No. 1, Jodhdur dated 8 -4 -72 by which the plaintiff Jalam Singh's suit was partly decreed. He claimed 1/3 share in the properties shown in Schedules A, B, C and D filed along with the plaint. He has been ganted only 1/6 share in one Haveli situated at Jodhpur. The rest of his suit has been dismissed. Jalam Singh, therefore, claims a decree for 1/3 share in all the properties whereas Smt. Narain Kanwar and others in their appeal urged that the plaintiff is not entitled even to 1/6 share in the Haveli
(2.)THE facts giving rise to these appalls briefly stated are that Shri Sajjan Singh was a Jagirdar of Sanderao, which was a scheduled jagir under the Matwar Land Revenue Act, Shri Sajjan Singh died on 1/ -/52 leaving behind three sons Bhim Singh, Takhat Siogh and Jalam Singh. Bhim Sinih was the eldest and according to the rule of pnoi) geniture applicable to the scheduled jagirs his succession was sanctioned by the Rajpramukh. Bhim Singh also died on 20 -5 -61 leaving behind him his widow Smt. Narain Kanwar and two daughters Kutmri Rajendra Kanwar and Pushpeadra Kanwar. The plaintiff Jalam Singh claims that the property left by Shri Sajjan Singh was joint Hindu family property and Bhim Singh was only the Karta of the family Shri Jalam Singh and his other brother Takhat Singi were also entitled to equal shares in that property with Bhim Singh Bhim Singh was managing the whole property during his life -time and after his death, his widow Stnt. Narain Kanwar is managing the same, on benalf of the joint family. The plaintiff asked for partition but the defendant Smt. Narain Kanwar declined and. therefore, he has brought the present suit.
Schedule A comprises of immovable properties situated at Sanderao as also a Havcli at Jodhpur. Schedule B contains the list of ornaments, cash, incomes etc. Schedule C contains the list of vehicles, cattle and other animals etc. and Schedule D contains the list of utensils and sundry articles said to be belonging to the joint Hindu family. The plaintiff claims to be point possession of the property.

(3.)DEFENDANTS No. 1 to 3, namely Smt. Narain Kanwar and the two daughters of deceased Bhim Singh filed a joint written statetement and contested the suit. Defendant No. 4 Takhat Singh remained ex -pa -te. The case of the defendants No. 1 to 3 was that the properties in dispute are not join Hindu t family properties but the exclusively belong to deceased Bhim Singh and devolved upon the defendants No. 1 to 3. According to firm, the jagir was impartible and was governed by the rule of premogeniture. Therefore, on the I death of Sajjan Singh, it devloped upon Bhim Singh alone to the exclusion of j his other two brothers Takhat Singh and Jalam Singh. It was denied that Shri Sajjan Singh or after his death Shri Bhim Singh managed the properties I as Karta Khandan or manager but they were the sole Jagirdar in their respective periods. It was also alleged that the valuation of the properties mentioned by the plaintiff was excessive. They denied that the plaintiff or the defendant No. 4 were in joint possession of any part of the property. They I' had already been given their shre of maintenance known as Chhut bhai f Bant or 'Ajeevika' and were resideng sep irately. Their case further was that I the home at Jodhpur had been purchased by the deceased Bhim Singh from his personal income and the filaintiff was never possession of any part of it I In the additional pleas, they reiterated that the jagir Sanderao being a schedule led agir was governed by the rule of primogenture and only the eldest linear male descendant of the Jagirdar was entitled to directed and the younger bro -f there were only entitled in maintenance. They could not claim any partition. It was also stated that the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 had already been given their 'Chbut bhai 'Bant' by Shri Sajjan Singh himself during his f life -time. There was no Hindu family, nor any joint Hindu family property. It was further alleged that when Shri Bhim Singh succeeded Shri Sajjan Singh be further give suit more lands, ornaments etc to his younger r brothers out of the benevolence and affection, through intervention of Shri Sumernath Gortu as an arbitrator. Thus, according to them, the defendants were not entitled to claim any parties. In the alternative, they also pleaded verse possession and the bar of limitation. Insufficiency of court fee was so pleaded. A plea was also raised that the plaintiff could not chillenge i.e. succession of Shri Bhim Singh to Shri Sajjan Singh as the same had already been recognised. So also after the resumption of jagir properties, declared as personal properties of Shri Bhim Singh could not be disputed in this suit as Sections 37, 46 and 47 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagir Act created a bar in this respect. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the parties are members of a joint Hindu family and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8 share in it? (2) What are the properties and their values to be partitioned belonging to the joint family? (3)(a) Whether after the death of Sajjansingh on 17 -4 -52, Shri Bhim Singh deceased being the eldest son of Sajjitnsingh succeeded validly to the Thikana jagir; if so what will be its effect on the suit? (4) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant Takhat Singh separated from their father in 1950 after receiving their Chhut bbai bunt or Ajeevika or in any case in 1959 from their elder brother Thakur Bhimsingh? (5) Did the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 raised any dispute after the death of their father as alleged in para 11 of the written statement and whether the said dispute was referred and settled through arbitration as alleged in the said para? (6)A Whether the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have been in adverse possession of the suit property for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the present suit? (6)B Whether the suit is time barred? (7) Whether the suit is barred by Sections 37,46 and 47 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act? (8) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? (9) What relief is the plaintiff entitled? After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Addl. District Judge No. I Jodhpur, partly decreed the suit as stated above. His main findings were as under.