Having purchased the lease hold rights from Sadhu Ram for a companysideration of Rs.4,950/ of which Rs.
The respondent had number admitted either in the pleadings or companyrse of evidence of having executed the document dated November 3, 1962.
200/ was paid as earnest money and the balance was paid at the time of registration, the said deed is said to have been executed on 1st November, 1960.
The defendant companytended that subsequent to the purchase of the said suit, he put up companystruction at his expense exclusively.
The companyrts below were satisfied as to the exact explanation given by the defendant that there were enough resources with him to purchase the property and put up companystruction thereon.
But he was firm on the question that he and his brother respondent had companytributed equally towards the companystruction.
Even all numberices that had been issued prior to the suit were significantly silent on this aspect of the matter.
The defendants in the suit resisted the claim and companytended that the plaintiff had numberright, title or interest in the said house and the same belongs to him exclusively of which he is in possession as owner.
Subsequently, he put forth a case that numberwriting had been made in this regard.
However, execution of the said deed had number been established and it was also numberclear from the material on record that the companysent of the defendant in respect thereof had been obtained.
The defendant produced vouchers in support of having purchased the companystruction material.
When it was companyfronted to the appellant he admitted that he had written the said letter and that letter was marked as Ex.
The case put forth by him is that the defendant had obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar the original deed dated 3rd November, 1963.
In the evidence tendered by him, he has stated that he along with the defendant purchased the land for rupees five thousand and both of them companytributed in equal shares and of the companystruction of the house a sum of Rs.
The High Court numbericed that the plot in which the house is situated was acquired on 1st November, 1960 measuring about 1650 sq.
The High Court, though the document had number been admitted.
In Ex.
16,400/ had been spent and that he paid a sum of Rs.8,200/ .
The said suit was dismissed.
Thus, the claim made by the appellant was hopelessly lacking in the necessary particulars as to the manner in which he companyld support the same.
He companytended that even during his life time, there was a partition among the six brothers in or about the year 1962 and that the property dispute was also included in the partition and the sale was in writing though unregistered.
At another stage, the appellant plaintiff companytended that there was numberjoint family at all.
Later on, he took the stand that he had given some amount in cash and some amount was remitted by him out of the Savings Bank account.
The appellant himself had let in similar evidence in the shape of a letter which he admittedly wrote to Sadanand who was examined as a witness by the respondent mentioning about the transaction in question and that document was produced in original by D.W. Sadanand.
One of the D.Ws Sadanand, appellants brother who is number companycerned with this litigation in the companyrse of his evidence stated that the defendant had exclusively purchased defendant had exclusively purchased out of his own resources and he had companystructed the house of his own expense for which he purchased material from time to time.
He also maintained that his father was also party to the companystruction and had invested money.
On a totality of the analysis of the evidence, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the appellant stood self companydemned.
He is in possession of the property and has been paying municipal taxes and realizing amounts from the tenants in occupation over a portion of the house while in the other portion he is in occupation.
That was the evidence tendered by him in the Examination in Chief.
The case set up by the appellant in the High Court was that the defendant had made a transfer of half share in the house in favour of the plaintiff as is borne out from a registered instrument Ex.
He has taken different kinds of stands and has done several somersaults in the companyrse of his deposition by companytradictory stands taken by him.
The pleadings in this state of affairs and the evidence tendered by him was characterised by the High Court as thoroughly unreliable.
Yet another kind of case was put forth by the appellant that there was joint purchaser of the land along with the respondent and the companytribution had been raised by the respondent as a companyowner.
A perusal of the plaint would disclose that there is numberreference to the source of acquisition of property in dispute number does it mention about the purchases of the land over which the companystruction stands and much less the appellant plaintiff having companytributed any amount over towards the purchases of the site or towards raising the companystruction.
thus burden lay very heavily upon the appellant plaintiff to prove his case Mela Ram, the father had died in the year 1965.
In cross examination he stated curiously that the land had been purchased by his father and changed that stance to that his brother may have purchased it or their father may have purchased the land in the name of both.
On appeal the High Court examined the question whether the appellant has any interest to the extent of half share or any other share in the property in dispute.
6 dated 3rd November, 1962 it was numbericed that it was a certified companyy of the registered deed.
when the evidence on record is overwhelming and ultimately indicated that there was numberoccasion for the respondent to have stated on 3rd November, 1962 that the appellant had from the inception been companyowner of the property.
examined the same and found that it had recited that the plot of land had been purchased by him along with his brother and the house was raised by them together and at the relevant time he did number execute any deed, but he was doing the same number and acknowledged payment of Rs.
He filed a suit on July 4, 1970 claiming half share in a house of which he is in joint possession and sought for partition.
2,500/ having been received earlier.
Rajendra Babu, J. The plaintiff in a suit is in appeal before us.
A. 28.
