J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment ant decree passed by Civil Judge (S. D.) Amreli on 1-4-1976 in a Special Civil Suit No. 47 of 1973 Thus the appellant has invoked the aids of the provisions of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to the present appeal may be narrated at the outset so as to appreciate the merits of this appeal. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the above suit for partition of the suit properties and for getting his 1/2 share in the suit properties and in the alternative to get the possession of the partitioned properties. He also claimed the accounts alongwith the mesne profit. ( 4 ) THE appellant is the original plaintiff who had initialed legal battle by filing the above suit against his brother defendant No. 1 and other purchasers who are defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The appellant/plaintiff inter alia contended that the properties which are elaborately mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint are ancestral properties left by his father. His father Jagjivan Soni died in the year 1950 (S. Y. 2007 ). Mother of the plaintiff died in the year 1962 (S. Y. 2018 ). The appellant/plaintiff contended that he and his elder brother Jamnadas respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 are the only heirs and therefore he is entitled to 1/2 of the properties mentioned in the schedule attached with the plaint. According to the plaintiffs case original defendant No. 1 who is the elder brother was residing at Kodinar. The plaintiff started residing at Veraval since S. Y. 2011 and thereafter he started his independent business there. His contention was that so long as he was at Kodinar he was doing the vahivat of the properties. But after his going to Veraval his brother respondent No. 1 took over the vahivat in respect of the suit properties. In the course of his management of the suit properties it is alleged that defendant No. 1 sold out unauthorisedly one house which is described at Sr. No. 1 in the said schedule to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. In that he contended that his consent was not obtained. Therefore he was constrained to serve the defendants with a notice which was not complied with. No. 1 in the said schedule to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. In that he contended that his consent was not obtained. Therefore he was constrained to serve the defendants with a notice which was not complied with. He also contended that his brother defendant No. 1 - Jamnadas had relied on one writing pertaining to partition. But it was not legal and it was not acted upon. Therefore according to the case of the original plaintiff the properties in question remain joint and his brother Jamnadas defendant No. 1 was in charge of the said properties as a co-owner. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit for 1/2 share in the suit properties and in the alternative possession of the partitioned properties in case the partition is held to be legal. ( 5 ) THE original defendant No. 1 appeared and resisted the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement at Ex. 14 wherein he inter alia controverted the allegations made in the plaint against him. According to the contention of defendant No. 1 the plaintiff had separated from the joint family during the life time of their father and the plaintiff had executed a writing in that behalf on a stamp paper on 1-5-1950. Thereafter the plaintiff started an independent shop after separating from the family. Defendant No. 1 also relied on other documents. Defendant No. 1 also contended that the plaintiff with a view to take some undue advantage had given a notice in the year 1965 but the well-wishers of the family convinced him and the plaintiff had agreed that he would not take any action pursuant to the said notice. Thus the plaintiff had agreed that he will not act upon the said notice and therefore the defendant No. 1 contended that he remained silent and did not respond to that notice. His further contention is that the plaintiff was given his share and he has separated long before and he had no interest in the sale transaction entered into between defendant No. 1 on one hand and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on the other with the knowledge of the plaintiff. He further contended that the property enumerated at Sr. No. 5 in the schedule attached to the plaint was his self-acquired property which was purchased by him after the partition was effected. 2 and 3 on the other with the knowledge of the plaintiff. He further contended that the property enumerated at Sr. No. 5 in the schedule attached to the plaint was his self-acquired property which was purchased by him after the partition was effected. He also denied that the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the movables as alleged. Thus in short defendant No. 1 controverted all the allegations levelled against him in the plaint. ( 6 ) ORIGINAL defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also appeared and resisted the suit by filing separate composite written statement at Ex. 15. It is inter alia contended by them that the property bearing city S. No. A-2/551-52 was purchased from defendant No. 1 for Rs. 12 500 by them which was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and since the date of that transaction they are in exclusive possession as owners. Thus it is pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers for full consideration and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against them. ( 7 ) IN the light of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court raised issues at Ex. 16. ( 8 ) HAVING examined the documentary and testimonial evidence the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit with cost. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the original plaintiff has now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity. ( 9 ) THE controversy in the present dispute is circumscribed to a very narrow compass. The only short point which requires to be adjudicated upon at this juncture is as to whether the original plaintiff has any right title or interest in the suit properties. In order to appreciate this sole question it would be material to refer to relevant evidence on record. ( 10 ) INCIDENTALLY it may be mentioned at this stage that the dispute revolves round the five immovable properties which may be enumerated hereinbelow for the sake of brevity and conveniencce. ( 11 ) IN order to prove his suit claim the plaintiff has relied on his evidence and in order to counter the claim of the plaintiff the defendants have relied on four witnesses. The testimonial collection is tabled as under:1 Plaintiffs witness - Laxmanbhai Jagjivan Soni (Plaintiff) Ex. 33. 2 Defence witness No. 1 - Jamnadas Jagjivan Soni (Defendant No. 1) Ex. 44. The testimonial collection is tabled as under:1 Plaintiffs witness - Laxmanbhai Jagjivan Soni (Plaintiff) Ex. 33. 2 Defence witness No. 1 - Jamnadas Jagjivan Soni (Defendant No. 1) Ex. 44. 3 Defence witness No. 2 -Narottam Kalyanji Ex. 48 4 Defence witness No. 3 -Mathurdas Abdul (Defendant No. 2 Ex. 50. 5 Defence witness No. 4 - Naruddin Abdul (Defendant No. 2) Ex. 50. ( 12 ) IT would be important at this juncture to refer to the material and relevant documentary evidence. Ex. 53 is a deed of relinquishment (Fargatino lekh) dated 1-5-1950. It is executed by the plaintiff Laxmanbhai in favour of his brother Jamnadas who is defendant No. 1 and their father Jagjivan. A plain perusal of this document would undoubtedly indicate that the plaintiff had received his share and he had let off his right title and interest in other joint family properties. It will be important to note at this stage that the plaintiff Laxmanbhai who is examined at Ex. 33 had unequivocally admitted that the said deed is written by him and he has signed it. It would be worthwhile to refer to the contents of the said deed which would throw light on the point in controversy in this appeal. Therefore the relevant portion of the said deed is reproduced as under: it would clearly indicate that the plaintiff Laxmanbhai was given his share out of the joint family properties. The learned trial Court Judge has rightly relied on this evidence as it could be used for the collateral purpose. Apart from that there is unequivocal admission incorporated in the said writing on the part of the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 which could also be successfully employed by way of admission. ( 13 ) THERE is another important documentary piece of evidence on record which also needs consideration at this stage. It is a memorandum of agreement produced at Ex. 54 dated 18-11- 1962. It is between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Thus the executants are two brothers. As per the said agreement the plaintiff was given properties at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 was given properties at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned in the schedule attached with the plaint. The execution of this writing at Ex. 54 is also not in dispute. Thus the executants are two brothers. As per the said agreement the plaintiff was given properties at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 was given properties at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 mentioned in the schedule attached with the plaint. The execution of this writing at Ex. 54 is also not in dispute. Not only that subsequently one more writing was made between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 which is produced at Ex. 56 which is dated 3 All the four properties have been mentioned in Ex. 56. It is signed by both the brothers. The plaintiff has also categorically admitted in his evidence at Ex. 33 in para 9 that he had signed the agreement Ex. 56. Thus the execution of this writing also no longer in controversy. It is amply clear from the said writing Ex. 56 that the plaintiff Laxmanbhai was given and he has obtained his share out of the joint family properties and he received Rs. 18 0 Of course defendant No. 1 in his evidence Ex. 44 has admitted his signature in Ex. 56 but has stated that he received only Rs. 15000 Be as it it may. Whether it is Rs. 15 0 or Rs. 18 0 but one thing is certain that the plaintiff Laxmanbhai was paid the amount towards full and final settlement of the share in the joint family properties. This transaction occurred on 3-8-1963. The evidence of Narottam Kalyanji at Ex. 48 and that of Mathurdas Lavjibhai at Ex. 49 also support the version of defendent No. 1. The evidence of defendant No. 2- Nuruddin at Ex. 50 is insignificant in so far as the suit claim is concerned. There is no other ocular evidence in this case. ( 14 ) IN view of the overwhelming evidence on record it becomes crystal clear that the plaintiff had no any right title or interest in the suit properties. The findings of the learned trial court Judge are just and proper. In so far as the movables are concerned there is no evidence worth the name on record to substantiate the version of the plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove any right title or interest in any movable properties and/or any other immovable properties. Therefore this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal as it is totally meritless. Therefore the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove any right title or interest in any movable properties and/or any other immovable properties. Therefore this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal as it is totally meritless. ( 15 ) IN the result the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (NVA) Appeal dismissed. .