SHASHI KANT,JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent no. 1 is represented by Sri Bharat Garg, Advocate. Service of notice upon respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is deemed to be sufficient, but none has put in appearance on their behalf.
(2.) The dispute in the suit is whether suit property is joint which has been purchased from common funds in the name of the appellant or is the exclusive property of the appellant?
(3.) The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is claiming only â ..•th share in the said property.;