ANANT SINGH, J.: - This is a second appeal by defendants 1 and 2 Pt. Radha Krishen Tickoo, and Pt. Vaid Lal Tickoo, against the Judgment, and the decree of the District Judge, Srinagar, dated 19-4-1964, decreeing without cost the plaintiffs suit for possession, but on payment of Rs.1000 as compensation for improvements, over one half of a house after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 19-11-1962 of the Sub-judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Srinagar, who had dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

2. The plaintiff-respondent also has filed before us cross-objections, asking for cost and mesne profits from the date of the suit. He has also challenged the order of the learned District Judge for payment of the compensation to the appellants.

3. The plaintiff, Shri Bhushan Lal Taploo, is the only son of Pt. Jia Lal Taploo, who was pro forma defendant No. 3, in the suit, and now respondent No. 3 in this appeal. Raja Ram was the father of Sridhar Joo Tickoo, the Original defendant No. 1, and Vaid Lal Tickoo defendant No. 2. Sridhar died after the filing of the suit, and his son Radha Krishen was since substituted in his place as defendant No. 1.

4. The house which is the subject-matter of the suit was admittedly an ancestral property of pro forma defendant No. 3, Jia Lal, having been acquired by his father. Jia Lal sold the entire house to Pt. Shridhar, since dead, and his brother Vaid Lal by a sale deed dated 23rd of Sawan 2001 equivalent to 7th August, 1944 for a consideration of Rs. 2000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to the appeal on 26-6-1957 as a minor through his next friend with an averment that he was a coparcener with his father, having one half share in the house, sold by his father to the appellants and that the sale was without any legal necessity, and, therefore not binding on the plaintiff in respect of is half share. He therefore, sought a declaration to that effect, and asked for joint possession over his half share in the house with a further prayer for injunction restraining the appellants from changing the condition of the house which is described in para 3 of the plaint.

5. The pro forma defendant No. 3, Jia Lal, did not appear at any stage to contest or support the plaintiffs suit.

6. The suit was contested only by defendants 1 and 2. They resisted it on the ground that the plaintiff was not even born on the date of the alienation, and, therefore, he had no share in the house sold. It was claimed that the house belonged exclusively to Jia Lal, and that he sold it as the Karta of his family for legal necessity, and for benefit of the estate, in that, the house being in a dilapidated condition beyond all repairs had to be sold so as to make some money out of it. They further asserted that they had spent about Rs. 4,000/- towards the improvements of the house by repairing it, and were, therefore, entitled to compensation in the event of the plaintiffs success.

7. The trial Court framed some 10 issues. The important issues are Nos. 1 and 2 bearing on the question if the plaintiff was born before the date of alienation of the house in dispute, entitling him to one half share in it.

8. Another issue, being issue No. 7, was, whether the sale deed was "for a legal necessity or to effect the repairs to the house to prevent it from being dilapidated."

9. Issue Nos. 8 and 9 are on limitation including adverse possession of the contesting defendants.

10. Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 relate to the claim of the contesting defendants regarding improvements said to have been made by repairing the house.

11. Issue Nos. 3 and 10 are only formal.

12. On behalf of the plaintiff, a number of documents were filed, and witnesses examined to show that the plaintiff was born on the 17th of Sawan 1999 Bk. equivalent to 1-8-42, about two years prior to the date of the alienation made on 7th August, 1944, entitling him to one half share in the house. The evidence consisted of a horoscope exhibit PI, said to have been prepared by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document