A party may reserve its right to produce evidence in rebuttal on issues the burden of proof of which lies on the opposite party, and this can be done before the other party begins its evidence.

JAGAT NARAYAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by one of the defendants against an order of the trial court allowing the plaintiffs to produce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence produced by the defendants on issues 3, 4 and 5.

( 2 ) THE dispute is relating to the properties which formerly belonged to the late maharaja Guman Singh, who was the grandson of Maharaja Takhat Singh, Ruler of jodhpur State. Guman Singh had 3 sons, Narpat Singh, Amar Singh and raghunath Singh, out of whom Narpat Singh is the eldest. Narpat Singh has a son inderjit Singh. During the life-time of Guman Singh, Narpat Singh took a second wife against the wishes of his father and was disinherited by him and Inderjit singh was appointed as his successor. After the death of Guman Singh, Inderjit singh was regarded as a successor. Narpat Singh was then alive. Maji Sahiba Smt. Jawahar Kanwar was appointed as his guardian and Raghunath Singh was appointed as the manager of the estate.

( 3 ) THE present suit was instituted originally by Raghunath Singh claiming one-fourth share in the properties on the allegation that Guman Singh, his wife, and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family. In his capacity as Manager Raghunath singh had made various admissions in writing in which it was stated that Guman singhs properties constituted an impartible estate which descended by the rule of primogeniture and that a family arrangement was made by Guman Singh during his life-time. These admissions went against the case set up in the plaint by raghunath Singh. He asserted in the plaint that these admissions were obtained fraudulently from him. The suit was contested by Narpat Singh and Inderjit Singh. Amar Singh and Maji Sahiba Smt. Jawahar Kunwar who had originally been impleaded as defendants were transposed as plaintiffs.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--

(1) Whether the various admissions of the plaintiffs in the application for appointment of guardian of minor Rajkumar Inderjit Singh and in the various affidavits filed by the plaintiffs in support of the application were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts as well as of law as pleaded in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint and as such the admissions in the applications and affidavits are not binding on the plaintiffs?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/4th share each in the disputed property?

(3) Whether the parties to the suit are not members of a joint Hindu family nor they are governed by principles of Hindu Law?

(4) Whether the suit property is impartible and succession to the same is governed by law of primogeniture and if so whether the suit for a partition is not maintainable?

(5) Whether Maharaj Guman Singh Ji made a family arrangement of the property in dispute as pleaded in para 2 (b) and additional plea in para 4 of the written statement of defendant No. 1 and if so whether the family arrangement made is valid?

(6) Whether the family arrangement was acted upon by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs by their acceptance and conduct are bound by it and are estopped from challenging the same?

(7) Whether the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the property in dispute? If not whether the suit is not maintainable without payment of ad valorem court-fee?

(10) Whether the suit is not maintainable unless the plaintiffs get a succession certificate and have their various admissions set aside?

(11) Is the suit barred by Section 47 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and resumption of Jagirs Act 1952 and by Section 13 of the Rajasthan Jagir decisions and Proceedings Validity Act, 1955?

(12) Whether defendant No. 4 Rajkumar Inderjit Singh was declared successor of Maharaja Guman Singh Ji by Additional Collector, Jodhpur, by his order dated April 13, 1959, and if so whether the suit by the plaintiffs is barred?

(13) Whether the notification dated 26th March, 1949 published in jodhpur Raj Patra dated April 2, 1949, not admissible in evidence as not having been