R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated; 5 -2 -1982 passed by IV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in civil ap ­peal No. 262 of 1972.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS respondents filed original Suit No. 594/61 for partition of their 4/35th share in the house in dispute situated at Mirzapur, Deputy Raghubar Dayal Lane, Narhi Lucknow, described and specified by the boundaries given at the foot of the plaint. In Schedule -A an ­nexed to the plaint, following family pedigree was given - Sheo Bhajan, died 1907 Sukhdev Prasad, died 1906 I Mangal Prasad, died in 1929 Daughter -Savitri Devi Shanker, died in 1936 I Uma Shanker died 1949 Krishnawati widow:of Uma Shanker (Deft, loy Prem Shanker (Plaintiff) Jagdish Shanker (Deft. 11) Brahma Shanker (Deft. 12) I Om Shanker (Deft. 13) SheoShanker (Deft. No. 1) Hari Shanker (Deft. No. 7) Naresh Shanker (Deft No. 8) Dinesh Shanker (Deft. 9) Ram Shanker (Deft No: 2) Ravi Shanker (Deft No. 3) Vishnu Shanker (Deft No. 4) Girja Shanker (Deft No. 5 j Tej Shanker (Deft. No. 6) It was pleaded that the property in dispute was joint Hindu family property and that on the basis of the aforesaid pedigree, plaintiffs -respondents were en ­titled to above noted share in the same. It was pleaded that even after the service of notice dated 6 -11 -57 defendants were not prepared to partition the property in dis ­pute and to give share of the plaintiffs and were trying to oust the plaintiffs from the house in dispute, hence the suit.
(3.) SUIT was contested by the defen ­dants No. 1,7,8 and 9. Who have filed their written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs -Respondents. It was pleaded that the house in dispute was not the joint family property, it was acquired by Devi Shanker, out of his personal funds by means of a registered sale -deed dated 1 -9 -1913 for an amount of Rs. 2150. from Thakur Bal Krishna and Lal Ji Lal. It was also pleaded that original suit No. 34/61 was filed by the defendants No. 1 to 6 which was decided in terms of compromise on 5 -10 -1961 and a registered partition deed was executed by the parties in pursuance of the said decree. Therefore, there was no question of further partition of the house in dispute. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed following issues: (1) Whether the property in suit is the joint Hindu family property or is the self ac ­quired property of Devi Shanker? (2) Whether the parties are related to each other as alleged in the plaint pedigree? (3) Relief? (4) In case it is found that the property was purchased by Devi Shanker alone, was it treated as joint family property as alleged in para -7 of the plaint and para -22 of the written statement of defendant No. 13. (5) Whether the defence of defendant No. 9 is barred by estoppel as alleged in para 24 of written statement of defendant No. 13? ;