JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.4.1996 passed by District Judge, Dhar in Civil Original Suit No. 17-A/91 by which dismissed the suit of the appellant. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit initially for permanent injunction against the respondents. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is the wife of the appellant while respondents No.2 to 5 an his sons and respondent No. 6 is his brother-in-law. During the pendency of the suit, suit was amended and a relief of possession of disputed land bearing Survey Nos. 213 and 214, situated al village Mundala, Tahsil Badnawar District Dhar, having total area 1.682 and 0.506 was also sought. The submission of the plaintiff in the plaint was that their family is joint hindu family and he is the Karta of the same; he is having agricultural land bearing Survey No. 30 having an area of 3.239 hectares and its land revenue Rs 26.69 Ps. which is his own property am subsequently on 16.8.1994 he purchased land bearing Survey Nos. 213 and 214 situated at village Mandala from respondent No. 6 Bherulal who is his brother-in-law by a registered sale-deed His further submission was that the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the suit property. He is also having two houses in the same village and the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the agricultural land as well as from, the suit houses. Therefore, they be restrained by perpetual injunction not to dispossess him from the suit land and suit houses. Subsequently he amended the suit and claimed a decree for possession over the land bearing Survey Nos. 213 and 214 stating that the respondents have dispossessed him, therefore, his possession be restored and possession over the houses be also restored. It was also alleged that respondent No.1, who is the wife of the appellant, is residing illegally with respondent No.6 and is not residing, with the appellant-plaintiff. 3. 213 and 214 stating that the respondents have dispossessed him, therefore, his possession be restored and possession over the houses be also restored. It was also alleged that respondent No.1, who is the wife of the appellant, is residing illegally with respondent No.6 and is not residing, with the appellant-plaintiff. 3. In reply all the defendants denied the allegations and submitted that the Ian bearing Survey No. 30 situated at village Mundala is the ancestral property of the respondents and the land which the appellant has purchased by registered sale-deed dated 16.8.1994 has been purchased out of the earnings from the agricultural land, therefore, the same is also the joint property of all the coparceners and they further submitted that there was a family arrangement of the entire property between the plaintiff an the defendants No. 1 to 5 and this arrangement was made by the plaintiff He, out of the two houses, gave one house to all four sons and remaining one house was divided into two parts between the husband and wife. The plaintiff kept 6 Bighas irrigated land and gave the rest of 14 Bighas of unirrigated land to his son. The partition was filed before the Collector and the partition has taken place before Radhakishan, who is one of the Social Worker in the area. The document of family arrangement is Ex. D-l. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings, issue were framed and evidence of both the parties was recorded and documents were, also exhibited. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 4.4.1996 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the entire property is the property of HUF and since the plaintiff has not filed any suit for partition and. the property is not the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and he is not the only owner of the same without a suit for partition, the plaintiff is neither entitled for a decree of possession nor for permanent injunction. Being aggrieved, the appellant-plaintiff has filed this appeal. 5. I have heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri Rajesh Yadav, for appellant; Shri P.V. Bhagwat learned counsel for respondents; and perused the record. 6. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Court has wrongly dismissed the suit when the family arrangement is already admitted between the parties. Even if Ex. 5. I have heard Shri A.S. Garg, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri Rajesh Yadav, for appellant; Shri P.V. Bhagwat learned counsel for respondents; and perused the record. 6. The submission of learned counsel for appellant is that the Court has wrongly dismissed the suit when the family arrangement is already admitted between the parties. Even if Ex. D-l, which is the document of family arrangement, is no admitted in evidence, from the oral evidence on record it is clear that the lane bearing Survey Nos. 213 and 214 was purchased by him from respondent No.6 by a registered sale-deed and it was the burden on the respondents to prove that it was purchased out of the profits of the join hindu family property and it was no self-acquired property of the plaintiff and therefore, the Court should have grantee the decree for possession as well as for perpetual injunction. 7. Learned counsel for respondents supported the judgment and decree and prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 8. Having heard learned counsel for parties, I am of the view that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit for possession as well as for permanent injunction. Admittedly the land bearing Survey No. 30 and two houses are no self-acquired property. The plaintiff (PW 1) himself has admitted it cross-examination in para No. 15 that the aforesaid suit property is the ancestral property, but he has further stated that the land which he has purchased from respondent No.6 Bherulal is his self-acquired property. As per Ex. D-2 which is a copy of Kishtbandi Khatoni for the year 1971-72 in which the name of Kashiram, who was the father of appellant has been shown as the owner of the property. Therefore, it is clear that the land bearing Survey No. 30 and two houses are not the exclusive properties of the plaintiff 9. It is true that in document Ex. D-l the plaintiff has also included the self-acquired property which he has purchased from respondent No.6 and DW 1 Ladubai, DW 2 Radha Kishan and DW 3 Bhagirath have also admitted that 8.13 Bighas of land is self-acquired property a the plaintiff which he has purchased from respondent-defendant No. 6 Bherulal. It was the burden on respondents-defendant No.1 to 5 to prove that the property which was purchased by registered sale-deed Ex. It was the burden on respondents-defendant No.1 to 5 to prove that the property which was purchased by registered sale-deed Ex. P-2 by the plaintiff, was purchased out of the funds and earnings of the ancestral property but they have not produced an evidence to that effect. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence on record it cannot be held that the land which was purchased by the plaintiff by Ex. P-2 is no the self-acquired property of the plaintiff If is further true that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to make any family arrangement over the self-acquired property as respondent/defendants No. 1 to 5, who are wife and sons of the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the self-acquire, property of the plaintiff during his life time. Therefore, up to that extent the document Ex. D-1 cannot be treated to be binding on him for making any family arrangement over the self-acquired property. It is also clear from the evidence on record that out of the said 8.13 Bigha of land, plaintiff is having possession over 6 Bighas of land but not having possession over the half of the house which was divided equally between the plaintiff and respondent No.1 Ladubai, who is the wife of the plaintiff. 10. The trial Court while dismissing the suit has vertually ignored the document Ex. D-l. Since the plaintiff has already admitted his signature over the same therefore, the document is binding on him The family arrangement, about the ancestral property, is also binding on him and cannot be reopened. Sufficient and clear evidence to the effect of family arrangement is available on record Though, PW 1 Hemraj (Khemraj) has already admitted his signature over Ex D-1, but it was his submission that the said document was got signed from him forcefully and no evidence of the same effect has been produced that it was go signed from him forcefully. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the document Ex D-1 was got executed forcefully from him According to this document the plaintiff is in possession of 6 Bighas of land but is not having possession over the part of the house which was given to him as per Ex D-1. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the document Ex D-1 was got executed forcefully from him According to this document the plaintiff is in possession of 6 Bighas of land but is not having possession over the part of the house which was given to him as per Ex D-1. The trial Court has also no considered this aspect of the matter that 8.13 Bighas of land is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff in which the wife and sons are having no share during the life time of the plaintiff and out of this 8.13 Bighas of land, the plaintiff is having possession over only 6 Bighas of land Therefore, he is entitled for possession over remaining 2.13 Bighas of land from the defendants. In fact the trial Court has also wrongly dismissed the suit for possession as well as for injunction. In view of the evidence on record, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled for possession over 2.13 Bighas of land from the defendants and also over the half portion of the house as per Ex. D-1 and was also entitled for injunction over 6 Bigha of land which was already in his possession. Though the trial Court has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopa Vinayak Gosavi and others. reported in AIR 1960 SC 100 , and summarized that the document Ex. D-l may not be the proof of partition but looking to the admission it can be used as an estoppel against the plaintiff. Even after this, the trial Court dismissed the suit simply on the ground that there was no partition between the parties. In my view that Court was wrong in dismissing the suit. The plaintiff is having possession over 6 Bighas of land therefore, he was also entitled for a decree for permanent injunction. He was also legally entitled to get possession on 2.13 Bighas of land of Survey Nos. 213 and 214 being the self-acquired property of this plaintiff as there is no evidence on record that this is the part of the joint hindu family property. Thus, in view of the correct appreciation of evidence, as per Ex. p-2 (sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff) and as per Ex. 213 and 214 being the self-acquired property of this plaintiff as there is no evidence on record that this is the part of the joint hindu family property. Thus, in view of the correct appreciation of evidence, as per Ex. p-2 (sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff) and as per Ex. D-l (family an-arrangement of the ancestral property), the trial Court should have held that the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession over 2.13 Bighas of land and also over the half portion of the house and should have also granted the relief of injunction over 6 Bighas of lane on which the plaintiff was having possession as per the admissions of the respondents-defendants. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, thi1 appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff for possession over 2.13 Bighas of land and also for possession of half of the house, all mentioned in Ex. D-l, is decreed and a decree for perpetual injunction is also granted over the 6 Bighas of land on which plaintiff is having possession, and the respondents-defendants are restrained no to interfere in the possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the same. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Record be returned.