JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff in a suit for partition, which has been dismissed, by both the lower courts, is the appellant and the 1st defendant the contesting respondent. The short question for decision is whether the appellant is entitled to any share in the suit property.

2. The suit property was originally kumki land and it was granted on darkhast to the 1st respondent. The appellant claims a share in the property on the strength of a recital in Ex. A1 of 17th April 1944, which is a partition agreement in his family, to which both the appellant and the 1st respondent were parties. The suit property did not belong to the family, but there is some recital regarding that in the document. The recital is to the effect that the sharers under Ex. A1 have a right to take water from a tank in the suit property, whereon the appellant and the 1st respondent had effected improvements. Barring this recital there is no other evidence to support the case of the appellant that he has right in the suit property. Therefore, both the lower courts have dismissed the suit.

3. The learned advocate of the appellant argues that the recital in Ex. A1 is an admission and therefore it has to be given its due

Click Here to Read the rest of this document