- (1.) THE present Second appeal has been instituted by the defendant appellant.
(2.) FOR adjudication of this appeal, the essential facts are as under. Nathu plaintiff filed original suit No. 24/69 in the Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur against Chhota, Santa, Shyamlal and Smt. Ramo Devi. In the suit the prayer was for partition of ancestral property and for possession by metes and bounds after the declaration of share.
(3.) NATHU plaintiff, Chhota, Sant Lal and Shyam Lal defendants are sons of Sadi and thus they are real brothers and Smt. Itamo Devi is the wife of Sadi. The ancestral property was described at the foot of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 Chhota filed written statement to the said suit In the written statement the defendant alleged that defendant No. 1 had separated from his father 39 -40 years ago, and by taking a separate tenanted house from Indrasen began to do his business separately from his father and began to reside separately from his brothers and the defendant by dint of dedication, hardwork and activities purchased the property described in Schedule B of the plaint from Purshottam Das etc. defendants 2 and 3 and got constructed one Storey house through their own finance. The contention of the plaintiff that the sale deed in respect of Schedule B property of the plaint was got in the name of defendant due to some other reason and the property is ancestral, is totally false. The father of defendant No. 1 and his other brothers have not invested any amount in the disputed house. In this connection and also with reference to other properties, defendant has given detailed description in his written statement.;