1. :- This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Suit No. 21/1973 by which the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent no. 1 for partition and passed the preliminary decree holding that the plaintiff is having 1/7 share in the property mentioned in the decree which are required to be partitioned by metes and bounds. The plaintiff Prem Ram filed the present suit alleging that the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant Jagannath was having sons Balu Ram (defendant no. 1), Prem Raj (Plaintiff), Amba Lal (defendant no. 2) and daughters Rukama (defendant no. 3), Raji (defendant no. 4) and Icharaj Kanwar (defendant no. 5). The wife of Jagannath Smt, Gogi Bai is defendant no. 6. According to the plaintiff, the ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendant Jagannath were having properties mentioned in sub-para (a) to (i) of para 2 of the plaint. Jagannath expired on 10-1-1971 at village Lavera Kalan. The property of the joint family property was not partitioned between the parties. The plaintiff claimed his share as 2/7 in the joint family property mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and sought relief of partition by metes and bounds.

2. The written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 and it is stated that the prop erty mentioned in para 2(a) of the plaint was the property of the father of the plaintiff and his brothers (defendants) and partition took place in the year 1962. The house A-2 was given to the plaintiff in partition and the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the above house since 1962. It is also submitted by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 that in partition, all the properties were partitioned in the life time of Jagannath. In addition to above mentioned house, plot mentioned in sub-para (c) of para 2 of the plaint also came in the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the above plot. The defendants further gave details of the properties how they were distributed in partition and it is also stated that defendant no. 2 Amba Lal, after the death of his father, invested money and constructed the house and, in the same way, defendant no. 1 also immediately after partition, on the land which fell in the share of defendant no. 1, raised two huts and, thereafter, in the Samvat Year 2028-29 constructed one 'Sal' and two 'Barana'. This property is in exclusive possession of defendant no. 1. The property mentioned in para 2(d) was also partitioned and the agricultural land of 12 bighas came in the share of the plaintiff and he is in possession of the above portion of the agricultural land since 1962 till the filing of the suit. The agricultural field of Navoda-wala measuring 16 bighas was partitioned and 12 bighas land of this came in the share of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 1 is in possession of the above land since 1962. The remaining 4 bighas of land and the agricultural field of Voliya Vali Khedi measuring 8 bighas 2 biswas came in the share of defendant no. 2. The property mentioned in para 2(e) was said to be not an ancestral property but it was purchased by defendant nos. 1 and 2 from their own money which they borrowed from others. In this agricultural land (para 2(e)) there is no share of the plaintiff nor there was any possession of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff did not make any payment or price for this land and, therefore, the plaintiff had no share in the property. It is further stated that the deceased Jagannath was not doing any business and the shop as mentioned in para 2(f) is the property of defendant nos. 1 and 2. This shop was started in the year 1964 and only defendant nos. 1 and 2 invested money in this shop for their business. Therefore, the plaintiff had no share in this business or the shop. The tractor and trolley was said to be property of defendant no. 2. It was admitted by the defendants that Jagannath died in the Samvat ye