The main legal point established in the judgment is that the building was constructed for the plaintiff and with the money of the plaintiff, and therefore belonged to the plaintiff. The court also clarified that the principle of estoppel by encouragement or acquiescence did not apply in this case.

This is a fight between two brothers. The appellant before me is the plaintiff. He is the younger brother. First defendant is the elder brother. Second defendant is the wife of the first defendant. In the suit, plaintiff scheduled two items of properties-item 14? 1/2 cents of land and item II a building in item 1. The suit was one for recovery of both items on the strength of title. The outline of facts in a nutshell necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these.

2. Plaint item I was allotted to the plaintiff in a partition deed Ext. Al. It is dated 29-3-112). At the time when the partition was effected, the plaintiff was in military service. Then he remained a bachelor.

3. In 1965, the plaintiff planned to construct a building in the property allotted to him viz. plaint item I. The construction of the building began in 1965 and the same was completed by the end of 1966. Plaintiff thereafter was residing in the building. Since the defendants were residing in a rental building, he allowed the defendants to reside in the building along with him.

4. According to the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was away, the income from the property was taken for and on behalf of the plaintiff by the first defendant and he used to account the income till 1979. In 1976, the plaintiff decided to marry. Thereafter, the relationship between the brothers became unharmonious and at discordance. They became at odds. The defendants began to appropriate the income from the property. The 1st defendant got entries made in the Panchayat register stating that the building belongs to him. He paid the building tax.

5. Since the building and the property are owned by the plaintiff, the plaintiff prays that the court should pass a decree allowing recovery of the properties scheduled in the plaint with mesne profits of Rs. 175/- per annum as the income derivable from plaint schedule No. I and a rent of Rs, 360/-per annum for the building.

6. Defendants contended that the plaintiff bad no possession from the inception, namely, from the date of partition. In 1965, the defendants constructed the building and the construction was with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. According to the defendant?, the first defendant has spent the entire amount for the construction of the building. Prom 1121 onwards, the first defendant was taking the income from the property and that he never accounted the income of the property to the plaintiff. Thus the first defendant claimed ownership of the property as well as the building. He submits that the claim for recovery of the building and the property are unsustainable and the suit has to be dismissed.

7. The trial court, after considering the evidence adduced in the case, held that the plaintiff has established his case in respect of plaint item I property and decreed the suit allowing recovery of plaint item I property. But, in respect of item 2 building, the trial court found that the building was constructed by the first defendant by his own funds, and so disallowed the prayer for decree for possession of the building. Of course, the trial court held: "Even if he (the plaintiff) had given the money to the defendants, for which there is no evidence, it does not mean that the building was constructed by him. It is clear from the evidence that item No. 2 building was built, by the defendants with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has spent some amounts for the construction of the building. The fact that he has spent some money for the construction does not give him title to the building. I find that item No. 2 building was constructed by the defendants".

8. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court, Kottayam. The, appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial court in respect of item No. L In regard to item No. 2 building, the appellate court also came to, the conclusion that the building was constructed with the funds of the first defendant and that the plai