In that sale deed certain property belonging to the family was sold.
One was that a sale deed was executed on 28 October 1942 by Reoti Saran for self and as guardian of his two sons as also by Sri Chand defendant learned Counsel for self and as guardian of his brother defendant learned Counsel along with Mohan Lal father of defendants Nos.
3 to 8 that Reoti Saran and his sons were jointly owners of the ancestral property.
Lakshmi Chand was separated and he accepted one fourth share in 1934.
The claim was company tested by defendants Nos.
It was stated therein that the vendors which would include Reoti Saran were owners in possession of the property.
If the deed of relinquishment had been genuine document then Lakshmi Chands share in 1934 would have been one third and number one fourth which he accepted.3 4 who was then alive.
The principal question was whether Reoti Saran had relinquished his share by two deeds of relinquishment made in the year 1922.
He claimed one third share in the properties.
It was companytended by the appellant that the evidence of Sri Chand and Lakshmi Chand should have been accepted as the trial Court did.
The trial Court accepted the defence and came to the companyclusion that Reoti Saran had relinquished his share.
The High Court found that there was admission of defendant learned Counsel , who was then major and the ancestors of defendants Nos.
The other feature to which the High Court referred to is the deed of partition dated 14 February, 1934.
1 and 2 who are the sons of Gaya Prasad.
N. Ray, C.J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 9 May 1966 of the High Court of Allahabad.
Reoti Saran filed a suit for partition of immovable properties companysisting of shops, houses and vacant lands.
