S.N.MODI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Singht Judge of this Court dated September 16, 1969.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated that relevant facts of the case are that Ranjeet Singh died on April 25y 1954 leaving behind two sons, the plaintiff Manohar Singh and the defendant Karasingh. Manoharsingh filed a suit for partition of joint family property consisting of two houses described in pare. 3 (ka) and 3 (kha) of the plaint and the movables described in Schedule A attached to the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that the property described in pare 3 (ka) was ancestral and the property described in Para 3 (kha) was purchased by Ranjeet Singh for Rs. 3199/ - under the sale -deed -dated September 29, 1946. In the sale -deed, the names of two sons Manohar Singh and Karan Singh along with Ranjeet Singh were mendoned as vendees. The plaintiff, further alleged that tie had also paid part of the consideration of the sale price in purchasing the house and as this house was joint Hindu family property. Since the defendant Karan Singh did not agree for partition of the joint family properties, a notice was sent by him on May 9, 1958, and ultimately tie instituted the suit for partition of the immovable joint family properties mentioned in Para 3 (ka) and 3 (kha) of the plaint and movables described in Schedule A. The plaintiff claimed half share in the entire joint family property and also prayed for a declaration that the gift -deed executed by the plaintiff's father on August 10, 1946 in favour of Karan Singh in respect of house described in pare 3 (kha) be declared null and of id as against the plaintiff. The suit was resisted by the defendant Karan Singh. He admitted that the house property described in pare 3 (ka) was ancestral property but stated that its southern portion was in a dilapidated condition which was reconstructed by the defendant by inuring expenditure of Rs. 5995/ - under the written permission of Ranjeet Singh dated May 28, 1949. The defendant further pleaded that there had been a partition between the parties during the life time of their father. As regards -property described in Para 3 (kha) it was pleaded that this property was purchase Ranjeet Singh out of his own earnings. It, therefore belonged to Ranjeet Singh who rightly made a. gift in his favour In respect of movable property, the case of the defendant was that no movable property was inherited by him.
(3.) THE trial court, on the consideration of the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that both the houses mentioned in pare 3 (ka) and 3 (kha) were joint family properties except the portion constructed by the defendant out of his own earning. It was also held that the defendant had spent Rs. 5995/ - in making improvements.;