The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 34, to determine the ownership of the disputed property and the admissibility of evidence, including admissions made by the plaintiff.

PRAKASH TATIA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 20/1977 (12/1973 ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Madan Lal filed a suit for possession of the disputed property described in para No. 4 of the plaint against his brother defendant Ram Prasad on the basis of title alleging that the plaintiff completed his studies in the year 1947 and, thereafter, got the employment and he remained in employment at Udaipur till 1952. Thereafter, the plaintiff came at Bhilwara and started his own business in the name of General Machinery Stores, Bhilwara and also doing the business there in the names of few other firms. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff purchased the disputed plot measuring 40 x 60 from Sua Lal and Dal Chand on 24-7-1958 by registered sale-deed. The plaintiff got the map of the house approved from the Municipal Board, Bhilwara on 21-3-1960 and invested Rs. 12,000. 00 for construction of the same. The plaintiff from time to time made additions and alterations in the house and also mortgaged the house with Smt. Anand Kumari on 19-11-1960. After mortgaging the house, the plaintiff took on rent the house in dispute and there are several persons who are tenants of the plaintiff in the disputed house. The plaintiffs father expired on 25-12-1964. When plaintiffs father was sick then the defendant came to the plaintiff along with his family. The plaintiff permitted the defendant to live in this disputed house and only few portions shown in the map were given to the defendant to live as licensee. In the year 1972, on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff gave one more room to the defendant which was in possession of Shri Vidhyarthi Satyanarayan. The plaintiff further stated that the plaintiff was in possession of three undergrounds (sic) where plaintiffs goods were lying and one room in the house was in occupation of the plaintiffs mother. "

( 3 ) ON 23-12-1972 when the plaintiff went to the house to meet his mother, the defendant and his sons dragged the plaintiff out from the house and they also gave a threat to the plaintiff and closed the doors. It was further alleged that the tenants Raghu Nandan and Kishan Lal handed over possession of their tenanted portion to the defendant. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for possession of the property in dispute and also claimed Rs. 100. 00 per month for damages for use and occupation.

( 4 ) THE defendant submitted written statement and stated that the house in dispute is joint Hindu family property and the plaintiff and defendant are having other movable and immovable properties at Bhilwara, Bhopalganj and Rayala and the property was never partitioned. The defendant submitted that the business in the name of General Machinery Stores was started by the plaintiff and defendants father Kanhaiya Lal and this firm was joint Hindu family firm. The plaintiff is also member of the joint Hindu family. The plaintiff, defendant and their father were also actively doing the business. It is also stated that out of the income of the firm, the properties were purchased. It was denied that the property has its own income and it is also denied that the firm was of the plaintiff alone. It is further specifically stated that the disputed property was purchased from the income of the General Machinery Stores. The plaintiff was the educated member of the family and there was good faith in the plaintiff and he was doing all the works of correspondence etc. The plaintiff acted as Karta of the family. The defendant shown his ignorance with respects to the fact of mortgage of the property but stated that Smt. Anand Kumari was never in possession of the house in dispute. The defendant in his additional pleas gave details of the joint Hindu property of the plaintiff and the defendant. In sum and substance, the defendants plea was that he was not