1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition of plot no.232 Mata.

3. The plaintiffs/appellants' case as pleaded is that plot no.232 Mata is a plot for procuring salt and on this plot, the plaintiffs and defendants used to do the business since times of their forefather. The plaintiffs and defendants used to take out the salt from that plot in their annual turn. However, the plaintiffs admitted in the2 plaint that the said plot no.232 Mata is registered in the Government department in the name of defendants after the death of Mana. The defendants in the year 1982 stopped the plaintiffs from taking benefit of their turn in that ancestral property. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed this suit for partition of plot no.232 Mata.

4. The defendants submitted that not only the plot no.232 Mata but plots no.143, 144 and 54 Mata were also ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. All ancestral properties were partitioned about 30-31 years ago, obviously from the date of filing the written statement by the defendants, which was filed on 7.5.1982.

5. The plaintiffs filed additional pleadings in the form of rejoinder wherein they stated that they have right to file suit for any particular property and, therefore, they have filed the suit for partition for plot no.232 Mata. The plaintiffs further pleaded that if they had not filed suit for partition of plots no.143, 144 and 54 Mata, then the defendants are free to file suit for partition. The plaintiffs denied the partition between the ancestors with Jamal 30-32 years ago. The plaintiffs then pleaded that no partition took place and the defendants are taking out salt from plot no.232 Mata whereas in that plot, the plaintiffs are also having share. In rejoinder, the plaintiffs stated that defendant no.2 Munshi was given in adoption to Allah Rakh. In para no.5 of the rejoinder, the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they have not got the plots no.143, 144 and 54 Mata in their name and again stated that the plaintiffs have right to file suit for only plot no.232 Mata.

6. The trial court framed the issues whether the plot no.232 Mata was partitioned 31 years ago and came in the share of the defendants ? The burden of this issue was placed upon the defendants. The trial court then by order dated 31.5.1985 framed one more issue i.e. issue no.1A putting burden upon the plaintiffs to prove that the plot no.232 Mata is a joint property of plaintiffs and defendants and the plaintiffs have half share in the said plot. Issue no.2 was framed that the plaintiffs did business of salt on plot no.232 Mata with the consent of the defendants. The defendants also took the plea that the suit is barred by time. One more issue no.2A was framed on 12.4.1984 on the basis of the plea taken by the defendants that the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not prayed for any relief for plots no.143, 144 and 54 Mata.

7. In the trial court, the plaintiff Saddiq gave his statement as PW1 and produced witnesses PW2 Abdul Rahman, PW3 Salim, PW4 Abdul Rahman s/o Ibrahim, PW5 Mamdeen Khan, PW6 Vishwamitra Arora and PW7 Mst. Pyari, mother of the plaintiffs.

8. The defendant Jamal gave his statement as DW14 and produced witnesses DW2 Kamaludeen, DW3 Mohan Ram and DW4 Surja Ram.

9. The plaintiffs produced copies of the documents obtained from the Government Department managing the salt manufacturing in support of his plea that the plot no.232 Mata is ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants.

10. The trial court while deciding issue no.1 held that initially the plot no.232 Mata was ancestral property and after death of plaintiffs' grand father and defendants' father-Man, the said plot came in the share of the defendants in partition. The issue no.1A was decided accordingly holding that at the time of filing of the suit, t