Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Defendant Appellants. Sri K.M. Garg, appears for the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Respondent No. 1 instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance but in appeal the judgment and order of the trial court has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. Aggrieved Defendants No. 1 to 3 and one Ashok Kumar Tyagi tenant who was subsequently impleaded have filed this appeal.
(3.) THE aforesaid suit was filed on the allegation that the property in dispute which is described as Haveli was purchased by the father of the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 Lallu Singh from the Government of India in an auction vide sale deed dated 8.9.1958. It was an exclusive property of the father of the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 and had devolved upon him which the Defendant Appellants had no concern. On the other hand, the defence of Defendants No. 1,2 and 3 in the suit (herein Appellants No. 1,2 and 3) was that the aforesaid property was purchased by Lallu Singh out of the funds of the joint family property and as such they also have half share in the same. This has been acknowledged by Lallu Singh himself vide document No. Ka -90 dated 12.8.1968. The aforesaid Lallu Singh transferred his half share in favour of Km. Shahnaz on 5.8.1986 and now the Plaintiff Respondent has started claiming the other half share also.;