Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- The dispute is short, the points of law few, the evidence largely made up of admissions, and so the judgment permits of brevity. A vignette of the facts is all that is therefore necessary.

2. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition where the narrow area of conflict in this Court is confined to two items claimed by the plaintiffs but disallowed by the High Court. The first two of the three points formulated for determination by the High Court reflect the controversy raised before us and may be excerpted:

1. Whether the said shop-room at the extreme north west corner of plot No. 1238 belongs exclusively to the defendants first party;

2. Whether the entire properties mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint are joint family properties liable to partition, and......

3. Point No. 2 relates to three items in Schedule C to the plaint which were covered by four usufructuary mortgages, Exs. B-1 to B-4. The case of the first (contesting) defendant, who is the first respondent before us now, is that these items of property exclusively belonged to him. The Trial Court has accepted this case and the High Court has affirmed this finding. The foundation for these concur