SATYA GUPTA ALIAS MADHU GUPTA Vs. BRUESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14-2-1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1845 of 1974. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave are the following:

(2.) In the plaint, though a claim was made that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Battu Mal, the suit was based not on that ground but expressly on the basis that Battu Mal purchased half of the property for him (the plaintiff).

(3.) The suit was resisted by filing the written statement. It was, inter alia, stated in the written statement that there was no disclosure in the plaint as to how the property in dispute belonged to the plaintiff and Battu Mal equally. It was also stated that the said Battu Mal purchased the suit property exclusively for him by paying the entire sale consideration. There was no intention on the part of Battu Mal to share the property or gift half share to the plaintiff when the name of the plaintiff was jointly included in the sale deed.