The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful

defendants questioning the judgment and decree of the first

appellate Court in granting 1/4^th share to plaintiff No.1 and

defendant No.1 in Survey No.530/2B+2C.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

(a)The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.394/2013 seeking

the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs

claimed that Survey No.530/2B is inherited by both the

plaintiffs and defendants after the death of Imamsab. The

plaintiffs further specifically claimed that the property bearing

Survey No.530/2C was jointly purchased by both the brothers

5

i.e. Makthumsab, who is the ancestor of the present

appellants-defendants and Mattehsab, who is the ancestor of

respondents-plaintiffs.

The

plaintiffs

claim

that

these

properties are joint family properties and they are entitled for

their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

(b)Defendant No.4 on receipt of summons contested the

proceedings and stoutly denied the claim of the plaintiffs

insofar as property bearing No.530/2C is concerned. He

specifically claimed that his father purchased the property

under the registered sale deed dated 2.6.1970 and therefore,

it is his self acquisition. By way of counter claim, the

defendants sought absolute title over Survey No.530/2C.

(c)The trial Court on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence answered Issue No.1 in the negative

and held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that Makthumsab

and his brother Matthesab have jointly purchased the property

bearing No.530/2C. While examining Issue No.2, the trial

Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants have

6

succeeded in proving that Survey No.530/2C was purchased

by Makthumsab and therefore, was of the view that the

plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in Survey No.530/2C.

(d)Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

trial

Court,

the

plaintiffs

preferred

an

appeal

in

R.A.No.114/2015.

(e)The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record found that the trial Court

erred in not properly appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence on record. The appellate Court was of the view that

the trial Court has totally misread Ex.D1, which is the sale

deed pertaining to Survey No.530/2C totally measuring 2

acres 34 guntas. Referring to the recitals in the sale deed as

per Ex.D1, the appellate Court found that Survey No.530/2C

was purchased in the name of Muktumsab as the manager of

the family. These recitals would go against the claim of the

defendants. The defendants have contended that Muktumsab

was serving in Railway Department and out of his independent

7

earnings he had purchased this property. However, on

examining the material on record, the appellate Court found

that to substantiate this defence, the defendants have not

produced any documents. The appellate Court on examining

Ex.D5 was of the view that Survey Nos.530/2B and 530/2C

were amalgamated and the names of plaintiffs and defendants

were jointly entered. On these set of reasoning, the appellate

Court has proceeded to allow the appeal in entirety granting

share to plaintiffs in both the properties i.e. Survey

Nos.530/2B and 530/2C.

(f)Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this second

appeal.

4.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-

defendants and the respondents-plaintiffs. Perused the

judgments rendered by both the appellate Court as well as the

trial Court.

8

5.

The controversy between the parties is only in

respect of Survey No.530/2C. On examination of the material

on record, this Court would find that the appellate Court has

properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and

has come to the conclusion that Survey No.530/2C was

purchased in the name of Mukthumsab who is the elder son of

Imamsab on behalf o