Abdul Hakim Khan, J. - (1.)THIS second appeal arises out of a suit, which the Plaintiff brought for the possession of a house sold to him. The Plaintiff purchased the house from Rajmal and this suit is filed against Rajmal as well as Rajmal's elder brother, Dhannalal.
(2.)RAJMAL did not enter any defence but his elder brother Dhannalal, has resisted the suit on the ground that the house in question was joint family property, that he as the elder brother was the Karta of the family, that his younger brother Rajmal (who was a mere co -parcener) had no right to sell the house.
It was also said in the written statement that the real reason for the sale of the house by Rajmal was to save it from attachment of a decree, which one Halkoo had obtained against Rajmal. The Defendant, Dhannalal, however admitted his signature as an attesting witness on the sale -deed, and has also admitted that he identified his brother before the Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed.

The trial Court held that the property was not joint but divided, and that in the circumstances Rajmal could have sold only half of the house and decreed the suit accordingly. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against this before the District Judge, Bhilsa, who passed a decree for the possession of the entire house. Now Dhannalal has filed this second appeal.

The learned District Judge has held:

1. That Dhannalal was aware of the sale of the house.

2. That with his knowledge and consent the house was sold, and,

3. That his attestation of the sale -deed and later on his identification of his younger brother now preclude him from challenging the validity of the transaction on the basis of the doctrine of estoppel.

(3.)THE case really turns upon the determination of the question as to what importance is to be attached to the attestation and later on to the identification by Dhannalal at the time of the sale of the house.
;