( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of an appellate decree passed by the Second additional District Judge, Indore, whereby a decree for partition passed by the court of the Civil Judge Class II, Indore had been confirmed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: The parties are related to each other as shown below:-Gyarsibai = Moolchand = Shakarbai (deft. 1) (died in 1948) (deft. 4)Devising Dindayal Jamnalal Nemchand (deft. 2) (deft. 3) (plaintiff) (deft. 5)According to the plaintiff, his father Moolchand died in 1948 and was at the time of his death survived by two widows--Gyarsibai and Shakarbai and four sons, namely, -- Devisingh and Dindayal (by Gyarsibai), and Jamnalal and Nemchand (by Shakarbai), all of whom are parties to the present litigation. During his lifetime, Moolchand was the owner of house No. 1, street No. 6 Pardeshipura, indore and an open plot of land bearing municipal No. 5 street No. 3, pardeshipura, Indore. Besides these two immoveable properties, considerable amount of gold, silver, bullock carts, cattle and cash worth Rs. 12000/-was also left by the deceased Moolchand. During the lifetime of Moolchand, his widows and his sons were members of a joint Hindu family. ( 3 ) FURTHER, according to the plaintiff, he served a notice on the defendants on 103-1961 and demanded partition of the joint family properties to which he and the defendants had succeeded on the death of Moolchand. In reply to this notice, the defendants denied the existence of any joint family property and the claim made by the plaintiff for partition.

( 4 ) IT was also alleged by the plaintiff that after the death of Moolchand, a house, on the open plot of land, was constructed by the defendants with the aid of movable property and income from immoveable property left by Moolchand. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for the partition of the two houses. With regard to the moveable property, it was stated by the plaintiff that since he would not be in a position to trace it with the defendants, he was restricting his claim for partition of the immoveable properties only.

( 5 ) THE defendants Gyarsibai, Devisingh and Dindayal denied the claim made by the plaintiff. With regard to the first house, it was said that after the death of moolchand, they remained in its adverse possession and had thus perfected a title by prescription. With repaid to the new house, constructed on the open plot of land, it was contended that during his lifetime. Moolchand had transferred this plot in favour of Devisingh and that the new house was constructed with the help of self-acquired funds of the defendants. On these grounds, the defendants denied the claim made by the plaintiff.

( 6 ) ON these pleadings, issues were raised by the learned Judge, who, after hearing the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that both the houses were liable for partition. In an appeal preferred by the defendants, the decree passed by the learned trial Judge was confirmed. Hence the present appeal by the defendants.

( 7 ) IN this appeal, the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants frankly conceded that so far as the old house is concerned, he was unable to challenge the decree passed by both the learned lower Courts and that this appeal may, therefore, be considered in respect of the new house only. So far as the new house is concerned, it was said that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in it inasmuch as it was the self-acquired property of the appellant Devisingh who had constructed it with his separate funds. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that both the learned lower Courts have rightly decreed the plaintiff's claim in respect of new house also and that this appeal was liable to be dismissed. Having considered the respective contentions raised by both the parties, this appeal is accepted so far as the new house is concerned for the reasons given below.

( 8 ) IT is admitted