JUDGMENT

K.M. Dayal, J. - This is a plaintiff, second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the disputed land AEFD shown partition of the disputed land AEFD shown in the map appended to the plaint. The allegation was that it was being used by them from the time of their ancestors as Sehan Darwaza and was also used for miscellaneous agricultural purposes for tying cattle etc. On the south of the land there was well and houses of the parties. Earlier all the property was joint but there was a partition amongst the ancestors and thereupon the parties acquired their respective shares. The disputed land was not partitioned but was kept joint for common use. The defendant No. 1 had dug foundations and started constructions illegally and forcibly. A partition of the land was sought claiming half share and separation by metes and bounds.

2. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 claiming that the disputed land was his exclusive Abadi and it stood settled with him under S. 9 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This land was acquired by the answering defendant exclusively about 30 years back from the zamindar. The defendant had no right over the same.

3. The