1. Heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent No.1.

2. Facts as stated by the appellant are that his father Thakur Jatan Singh had one brother Daljit Singh and one sister Rajendra Kumari. Father of all three of them Thakur Berisal Singh Ji owned a Haveli called ‘Tikam Singh Ki Haveli, situated in Jaipur, Rasta Kothi Seth Mani Ramji. Thakur Berisal Singh Ji, father of the parties, used to take rent of this property and owned and possessed the same. After his death, his widow Suraj Kanwar used to take rent who died in 1969. As Thakur Berisal Singh Ji left two sons and a daughter, they jointly owned and possessed the Haveli. Daljit Singh (defendant No.1), being unmarried and younger brother of the plaintiff Jatan Singh, with the consent of the plaintiff, kept tenants in the Haveli and collected rent of this Haveli but did not pay a single penny to the plaintiff who had 1/3 share in the properly. Resultantly, plaintiff Jatan Singh prayed for partition of the property and separate possession over his /13 share in the Haveli and claimed Rs.1800/- per months as mesne-profit.

3. The defendant Daljit Singh denied the allegations of the plaint and pleaded interalia that he is in exclusive possession of the disputed Haveli since 1963 and is keeping tenants in it. The Plaintiff was neither in joint possession of the Haveli during the life time of Thakur Berisal Singh Ji nor after his death and he is not entitled to any partition. In additional pleas, the defendant pleaded that Thakur Berisal Singh Ji had agriculture Land in village ‘Khori’ which measured 226 Bigha 15 Biswa. Thakur Berisal Singh had in his life time, given the disputed Haveli to defendant Daljit Singh and the agriculture land to the plaintiff Jatan Singh who is living in a separate house since the time of his marriage and the defendant lived in ‘Kanota Bagh’ since 1959. Later on the plaintiff Jatan Singh took possession of the portion in ‘Kanota House’, where the parents of the parties resided and let it out to the tenants.

4. Smt. Rajendra Kumari, who was later on added as defendant No. 2 in the suit, pleaded interalia that the agriculture land in village Khori is also their ancestral property which is in possession of the plaintiff and it should also be partitioned and one third share should be given to the defendants.

5. Smt. Kamla Kanwar and Sushri Shobha, daughters of Thakur Jatan Singh Ji, who were impleaded as defendants No. 4 and 5 after his death, filed their separate written statements and claimed their equal share in the disputed Haveli.

6. On the Basis of these pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether Thakur Berisal Singh had in his life time, given the disputed Haveli to the defendant and the agriculture land in village ‘Khori’ measuring 226 Bigha 15 Biswa to the plaintiff as such now there cannot be any partition.

(ii) Whether the plaintiff took away the ornaments and other things mentioned in para 3 of the additional pleas and what will be its effect in the suit.

(iii) Whether, the defendant in the suit Shivnath Singh Vs. Berisal Singh, on being impleased as a party, after the death of Berisal Singh, spent Rs. 8690.41 P. and what will be its effect in the suit?

(iv) Whether, in case of partition, the agriculture land and the movable property, mentioned in para 3 of the written statement, is liable to be included in the partition?

(v) Whether Rajendra Kanwar is a necessary party?

(vi) Whether the suit is not within limitation?

(vii) Whether the plaintiff has joint possession over the suit property as such a valuation court fee should not be paid on it?

(viii) Whether the valuation of the suit property is one lac rupees and less court fees has been paid?

(ix) Whether, in case of partition, the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 75/- per month as mesne profit?

(x). Relief.

7. The trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments decided issue No. 1 in favour of the defendant, issues N