P.K. Palli, J.(Oral) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. Suit filed by him was partly decreed in his favour in respect of 57 Bighas 8 Biswas of land of which he was held to be the exclusive owner. Suit in respect of the other land claimed by him was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff felt agitated against the decree in respect of tie refusal to grant him the entire relief and he filed appeal before the learned first appellate Court. The defendants also filed cross-objections. The appeal as well as the cross-objections have been disposed of by a common judgment whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been ordered lo be dismissed in its entirety. Parties, herein-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. 2, One Attru had three sons, Ram Charan, Rama and Govind. Ram Charan had two sons, Goplau and Devi Chand. Suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed by Gopalu, plaintiff, impleading his father Ram Charan as defendant No. 1 and his real brother Devi Chand as defendant No.2. Defendants No.3,4,5 and 6 are sons of Devi Chand, defendant No.2. Rama has been impleaded as defendant No.8 and Govind as defendant No.9.

3. The plaintiff sought a declaration to the effect that the land measuring has 3 Biswas entered in Khatauni No.6, Khata No.9 was held by Ram n, his father and by his two uncles, Rama and Govind in equal shares. This land is said to be ancestral. Plaintiff claims share to the extent indicate in the plaint in this property.

4. Suit has also been filed in respect of the property wherein the plaintiff has alleged that he along with his father and other brother constituted a join Hindu family of which his father was the KARTA and in that capacity he had acquired ownership in respect of 98 Bighas 8 Biswas of land by purchase am the amount was paid out of the joint family earnings consisting of himself and the two sons, that is, the plaintiff and his brother.

5. Third piece of land is said to be measuring 57 Bighas 8 Biswas, whid the plaintiff claimed to be his exclusive ownership and possession and which had nothing to do with the joint Hindu family property.

6. It is stated that the father, Ram Charan, wrongly and illegally included his other brothers, Rama and Govind as co-owners in respect of the land measuring 98 Bighas and at a later stage exchanged this land and Ram Charn obtained his share in the ancestral property and Rama and Govind acquired their share in the land measuring 98 Bighas and 57 Bighas, respectively. It is also said that Ram Charan in order to deprive the plaintiff from succeeding to his share in the ancestral property made a gift of land measuring 17 Bigkas Biswas and S3 Bighas 9 Biswas in favour of his grand-sons, that is, the sons of Devi Chand, defendant No.2.

7. There acts of Ram Charan are said to be illegal and are said to have been done with the motive to deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate share in the other property which has acquired by him exclusively.

8. The defendants, besides raising several preliminary objections, on merits, have stated that so far as the inheritance of the ancestral property by the plaintiffs father and his two brothers constituted joint Hindu family is admitted, the constitution of the joint Hindu family consisting the father of the plaintiff and his sons has been denied. It has also been denied that the plaintiff had purchased 57 Bighas of land of which he claimed exclusive ownership and possession.

9. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, found that the plaintiff had successfully proved himself to be the exclusive owner in respect of the land measuring 57 Bighas 8 Biswas and was entitled to the declaration claimed by him in that respect. The suit in respect of the other property claimed by him was ordered to be dismissed.

10. The learned first appellate Court, vide impugned judgment, has disposed of the appeal filed by the plaintiff as well as cross- o