1. By this common judgment, both the aforesaid appeals are being disposed of together.

2. In these two appeals the judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 199/1995; (RBT No. 4/2002) titled Tikka Brijendra Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani and others is under challenge. Whereas RFA No. 271 of 2003 was filed by defendant No. 1 Ajay Singh (since deceased), RFA No. 310 of 2003 has been filed by the plaintiff Tikka Brijendra Singh. Appellant Ajay Singh in RFA No. 271 of 2003 (who was defendant No. 6 in the Suit) had died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record and substituted as appellants vide order passed by this Court on 19th March, 2004 in CMPM No. 179 of 2004.

3. Before I proceed to deal with the issues involved for adjudication in the two appeals, I indicate hereinbelow brief facts leading to the filing of the suit, from out of which these two appeals have arisen and consequently the filing of the appeals by the two appellants.

4. Sole plaintiff Tikka Brijendra Singh had filed the aforesaid Civil Suit originally against three defendants only who were his father Raja Harmohindra Singh (defendant No. 1), his mother Smt. Usha Devi (defendant No. 2) and the Land Acquisition Officer, Pong Dam Project, Talwara (defendant No. 3). It was during the pendency of the suit and based on various inputs received in the suit by the Court from various parties who had, inter-alia, also filed applications under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC that other defendants including deceased appellant Ajay Singh in RFA No. 271/2003 and respondents Shri Bali Ram Sharma, Smt. Snehlata Sharma and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma came to be added as defendants in the suit.

5. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed himself to be the son of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 Raja Harmohindra Singh had died during the pendency of the suit. His legal representatives were substituted after his death. The suit was filed for the partition of the property finding a mention in Schedule I and Schedule II to the plaint, for rendition of accounts and for the relief of injunction. The plaintiff in the suit had claimed that he was entitled to ½ share in the property and further claimed that based on his claim of such entitlement the property be partitioned. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to ½ share in the compensation amount which had already been received by defendant No. 1 as also similar ½ share in the compensation amount that defendant No. 1 would be receiving in future (pending adjudication of the compensation dispute in the Court of District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala as well as the Land Acquisition Officer, Talwara). The compensation already received as well as that to be received was with respect to the land belonging to defendant No. 1 which had been acquired for the construction of Pong dam. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No. 1 had received Rs. Eighty five lacs with accrued interest which he wrongly appropriated to himself to the exclusion of other members of Hindu Undivided Family, namely, the plaintiff as well as defendant no.

2. Actually, the plaintiffs contention in the suit was that he along with defendant No. 1 (his father) and defendant No. 2 (his mother) constituted HUF. The plaintiff further prayed in the suit for rendition of accounts with respect to compensation amount already received by defendant No. 1. Injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating or parting with the possession of the suit property was also claimed by the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff pleaded that he was the grand-son of late Raja Sham Singh of Dada Siba and son of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 Raja Sham Singh had died in the year 1932 and after his death defendant No. 1 succeeded to Siba Jagir. After the coming into force of Constitution of India, Jagindari was abolished and property of Jagir was converted into joint family property. W