KRANTI CHANDRA Vs. CHHOTELAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I find no force in this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff appellant brought the suit for partition of his 1/3rd share in the house in dispute on the allegation that the house belonged to three brothers one of whom was Govind Madho. This Covind Madho made a gift of his 1/3rd share to Smt. Mahadevi and the plaintiff purchased this 1/3rd share from Smt. Mahadevi under a sale deed dated 2nd September 1954. One third share belonging to Basdeo was said to have been sold to Chhotelal defendant No. 1, while the rest of the one third share was said to have belonged to the other defendants. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 alone on various grounds including the plea of limitation.

(3.) The trial court held that the plaintiff had no share in the house and that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate court has differed from the trial court on the question of purchase of one third share by the plaintiff. That court has come to the conclusion that Mahadevi being the daughter of Govind Madho had one third share and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff had been validly executed. That court, however, came to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 had remained in adverse possession of the house and so on the question of limitation the finding of the trial court was affirmed. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal.