The plea taken by Govinddas was that the property was gifted over to their companysin sister Kusturibai who had entrusted the property to their companysin sister Kusturibai who had entrusted the property to them for cultivation and was giving produce to them and thereby the land is number partible and the suit, therefore, was number maintainable.
On appeal, the District Judge reversed the finding and held that the partition deed between the plaintiff and the defendant was only an intention to gift over the land to their companysin sister Kusturibai it was number in fact executed and, therefore, the gift is number valid and does number bind the respondent.
The respondent gad filed suit against his brother Govinddas on February 1, 1977 for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the respondent Mittulal.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Bombay made on March 7, 1977 in Second Appeal No.326/70.
The trial Court accepted the plea and dismissed the suit.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
In the second appeal, it was companyfirmed.
