- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Chiranji-lal and Chitarmal, against the judgment of the District Judge, Alwar dated the 24th May, 1951, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition of coparcenary properties.
(2.) THE facts of the case, alleged by the plaintiffs are that Ram Pratap, who was living at the time of the filing of the suit, was the father of Chiranjilal and chitarmal, who are the plaintiffs and also of Gordhan who is the defendant No. 1. The family consisting of the father and three sons was alleged to be joint and the properties specified in the plaint were alleged to be joint family properties. The plaintiffs claimed 2/3rd share in the joint family properties. The defendant, Ram Pratap, filed a written statement saying that there were no ancestral properties left by Jhuntaram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, and that the properties of which partition was claimed were his own self-acquired properties, and the plaintiffs had no share in them. He had made a gift of those properties in favour of Kalu Ram the son of Gordhan, and had got the gift-deed "duly registered. It was in the alternative pleaded that if the plaintiffs be considered to have any share in the properties Gordhan was also entitled to l/3rd shore as he was one of the sons of Ram Pratap and as his adoption to Ganga Shahi, brother of Ram pratap set up by the plaintiffs was not a fact. Replies of Gordhan and Kalu Ram were to the same effect as that of Ram Pratap. Ram Pratap died after filing his written statement and the proceedings in the suit continued between the sons of ram Pratap along with Kalu Ram who was his grandson. The findings of the trial court were that no ancestral properties came to the hands of Ram Pratap after the death of Jhunta Ram, his father and grandfather of the plaintiffs. It was further held that the properties of which the partition was claimed were acquired through the earnings of Ram Pratap during his life time and the plaintiffs who were the sons of Ram Pratap could claim no interest in those properties merely be-cause they may have assisted their father in the conduct of his business by sitting on his shop and by helping him in the discharge of his trade. The suit of the plaintiffs was therefore, dismissed.
(3.) IN this appeal two points have been urged by the learned counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs:;