Mahesh Narain Shukla, J. - (1.) This is a defendant's second appeal in which a question of some importance relating to the interpretation and applicability of the amended S. 331 of the UPZA and LR Act has been canvassed before me. The matter arose in the following circumstances. A suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and joint possession against the appellant on the allegations that the respondent and the appellant were real brothers and formed a joint Hindu family of which the appellant being the elder brother was the Karta, that one Mahadeo mortgaged his share for a consideration of Rs. 500/ - which was given out of the joint family funds and the mortgage deed was executed in the name of the defendant alone being the karta of the joint family, that thereafter Mahadeo executed a sale -deed in favour of the appellant but its consideration was paid out of the joint family funds, that the plaintiff and the defendant were the khudkasht holders and in possession of the plots in suit and after the date of vesting became the bhumidhars of the same. On these facts the following reliefs were claimed which need be reproduced: - - 1. That a declaration be given to the effect that the plaintiff is the bhumidhar of one half share of the land in suit.
(2.) That although the plaintiff is in possession over the land in dispute, yet if the defendant proved his exclusive possession during the pendency of the suit, in that event a decree for joint possession be passed in the plaintiff's favour. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff asked the defendant to get the former's name entered in the revenue papers but the latter refused and, therefore, the suit had to be filed. 2. The appellant contested the suit with the allegations inter alia that he had separated from his father in the year 1921, that he had purchased the property out of his self earned money and was in exclusive possession thereof and had also acquired title by adverse possession for more than 12 years and that the plaintiff had no rights in or title to the property which was the exclusive property of the defendant.
(3.) The following issues were framed by the trial court: - - 1. Whether the property in suit is the joint family property of the plaintiff. If so, what is his share? 2. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the property in suit was joint family property and the plaintiff was a co -bhumidhar. Hence, he decreed the suit.;