JUDGMENT 1. 1. This first appeal under Section 96 Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree of partition date 23.12.1978 granted by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 115/1974 (19/1961) Raja Harisingh Vs. Raj Ishwari Singh . This is defendant's appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. 2. The suit and the litigation between the parties has a long drawn chequered history and the cause of action goes back to 1961 when the suit was filed by younger brother Raja Harisingh s/o late Raja Bishansingh Ji against his elder brother Raja Ishwari Singh in respect of immovable and movable property mainly the property known as Udai Singh Ji Ki Haveli situated at Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. The family pedigree as given in the plaint may be given below in order to understand the controversy in a proper manner : Raja Narasinghdas Ji 3. The plaintiff Raja Hari Singh Ji came with a case that Raja Narsingh Das Ji had purchased the Haveli and residential house as stated in Schedule-Ka in Smvt. Year 1909 for Rs. 1000/ from Jaipur State and other adjacent property as stated in schedule-Ka-1 for Rs. 125/- in the Smvt. Year 1925. Thereafter Raja Udai Singh Ji s/o Raja Narsingh Das Ji purchased immovable property situated in schedule-Kha and constructed some part thereon. It was further stated in the plaint that the motehr of plaintiff Maji Sahab Panwar Ji w/o Raja Udai Singh Ji had requested and got the Jagir (State Grant) partitioned between the two brothers namely Raja Kishan Singh Ji and Raja Bishan Singh Ji and separate 'Matmi' in favour of two brothers were issued by the Ruler of Jaipur State on 2.3.1916 [Matmi was fiscal law of Jaipur State and a right given to Jagirdars for residence or garden free of premium. Clause (3) of Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 defines it as 'Matmi 'means mutation of the name of the successor to State Grant on the death of the last holder (see Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945), which were not treated as stautory law or 'existing Jagir Law' by Full Bench of this court on the (1) Jai Singh v. Shobhag Singh [1961 RLW 168-para 38] . Thereafter, both the brothers purchased properties as stated in Schedule-Ka and Schedule-Kha. Thereafter, both the brothers purchased properties as stated in Schedule-Ka and Schedule-Kha. According to the plaintiff the partition between the two brothers Raja Kishan Singh Ji and Raja Bishan Singh Ji took place on 21.2.1932 which was accepted by both the brothers and the movable property was also distributed and the immovable properties which were in respect of possession of two brothers was treated as to be their own and was not specified in the partition deed. The plaintiff further stated that Raja Bishan Singh Ji being happy and satisfied with the services of his wife, Smt. Pritam Kanwar, defendant No.2 gifted the property to her as stated in Schedule-Cha, which property continued to be in her possession and she used to realise the rent out of it. According to para 8 of the plaint Raja Bishan Singh died on 26.6.1947 and at a time both the elder brothers defendant No.1 Raja Ishwari Singh and the plaintiff Raja Hari Singh Ji were minors and were studying in Mayo College, Ajmer. According to plaintiff the property which came in the hands of late Raja Bishan Singh Ji was a joint family property purchased and constructed by Raja Bishan Singh Ji and his son Raja Udai Singh Ji, separate from the Jagir (State Grant) and the same being joint family property was liable to be partitioned between the two brothers Raja Ishwari Singh Ji and Raja Hari Singh Ji, as third brother Raja Dharam Singh Ji had gone in adoption to Raja Kishan Singh Ji, his uncle and brother of Raja Bishan Singh Ji. Since according to the plaintiff, the elder brother Raja Ishwari Singh Ji sought to deprive the plaintiff from his right in the said joint family property, he filed the suit for partition on 18.4.1961. 4. The defendant No.1 Raja Ishwari Singh Ji contested the said suit and the case of the defendant in brief was like this. That in the plaint the basis of the suit is division of the joint Hindu Family properties done between Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh by Maji Sahiba Panwarji sometime in the year 1932 and accordingly, it is customary therefor, has claimed division of the Haveli known as Raja Udai Singh Ki Haveli and has claimed one half (1/2) share in the properties left by his father late Raja Bishan Singh. That in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the plaintiff, the plaintiff further proceeded to prove the factum of partition assuming that it was of joint Hindu family properties. Whereas in fact, Raja Udai Singh died sometime in the year 1912 without leaving any children, the property being property of a State Grant, stood reverted back to the State and thereafter Late His Highness Maharaja Madho Singji of Jaipur nominated his two sons namely Lalji Raja Kishan Singh and Lalji Raja Bishan Singh soon after the demise of Raja Udai Singh. It is pertinent to note here that Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh were not the adopted sons but they were only nominated by the then His Highness, Jaipur. Otherwise also, as per the law of adoption prevailing at that point of time adoption of only one son was permissible and adoption of more than one son was invalid under law, therefore, plaintiffs contention that the defendant-appellant has admitted the factum of adoption of Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh in Exhibit 21 (written statement) is not tenable at all. Any admission against law does not create estoppel against a party. The Jagir of Raja Udai Singh and of his predecessors was known as Jagir of Thikana Vijaypura (Beechi). Maharaja Madho Singhji carved out another Jagir known as Thikana Boojh out of Thikana Beechi and issued two separate Matmis in favour of both the aforesaid Raja Kishan and Raja Bishan Singh thereby making them independent Jagirdars. 5. That on the basis of the pleadings between the parties, the trial court framed the following issues in the suit : 359025 6. Issues No. 1, 8 & 10 The trial court decided the issue No.1, 8 and 10 jointly and therefore, they are being dealt with in the present appeal also jointly. The burden of issue No.1 was kept on the defendant by the trial court. The trial court recorded the evidence of 11 witnesses in favour of the plaintiff namely; PW1 to PW11 and 12 witnesses for the defendant namely; DW1 to DW12 and Ex.1 to Ex.26 were produced and proved by the plaintiff, whereas Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/62 were produced by the defendant. 7. The trial court recorded the evidence of 11 witnesses in favour of the plaintiff namely; PW1 to PW11 and 12 witnesses for the defendant namely; DW1 to DW12 and Ex.1 to Ex.26 were produced and proved by the plaintiff, whereas Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/62 were produced by the defendant. 7. The crux of these three issues is as to whether the suit property claimed to be the joint family property is a joint Hindu Family property liable to partition or not or whether the said property is part of Jagir (State Grant) and any accretion thereto will also be treated as part of the Jagir property which devolved on the eldest son of the senior most branch of Jagirdar i.e. rule of primogeniture and the younger brother and mother will only have a right of living in such property and right of maintenance. According to the plaintiff the suit property was not part of the State Grant but was separate and independent property purchased by Raja Narsingh Das Ji, then his son Raja Udaisingh Ji and therefore, the share of property which came in the hands of Raja Bishansingh Ji upon partition in 1932 and was further liable to be partitioned between the two brothers Raja Ishwari Singh and Raja Harisingh and their mother Maji Sahab Pritam Kanwar. Since the burden of proof with respect to issue No.1 was kept on the defendant, he produced besides examining himself as DW-1 Ishwari Singh, DW8-Mohan Singh, DW-10 Laxman Singh, DW-11 Gyan Chand Sethi and DW-12-Kushal Singh, who supported the rule of primogeniture i.e. eldest son succeeding to the Jagir and who have gave example of Thikana Chomu, Nayla, Kanota, Unaira, Dooni, Barwara, Neejhrana, Chandroli, Lalpura, Khandela, Santha and Maharajapura. 8. The trial court did not rely upon these defence witnesses in as much as in found that DW1 and DW8 had no personal knowledge of such partitions in other Thikanas and they placed reliance of a Diary which was not produced before the Court. DW1 and DW12 gave example of Chandroli Thikana whereas they were not related to the said Chandroli Thikana and as against that plaintiff had produced Laxman Singh belonging to the said Thikana Chandroli who clearly stated before the court that his brother Amar Singh had filed suit for partition and which was decreed and property was divided between the two brothers. The two documents Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-5, orders passed by Civil Judge and some appellate authority were also distinguished by the trial court in which the Jagir property was treated as impartable but the same did not pertain to properties of Jagirdar other than the State Grant. As against this, the plaintiff produced evidence before the trial court that the plaintiff in question namely the Haveli was purchased by Raja Narsingh Das Ji from Jaipur State vide Ex.1 for Rs. 100/- and thereafter, another Haveli was purchased by Raja Udai Singh Ji for Rs. 959/- vide Ex.2 and their further accretion were made vide Ex.3, 4 and 5 by Raja Udaisingh Ji for Rs. 109/-, Rs. 149/- and Rs. 499/-. Both brothers Raja Udaisingh Ji and Raja Kishan Singh Ji had jointly purchased the property for Rs. 299/- vide Ex.6 and similarly on 22.4.1929, they jointly purchased a property from one Bhaktwari Devi vide Ex.7. According to the plaintiff the defendant No.1 Ishwari Singh had himself admitted that this property was purchased by their ancestors and was not part of the State Grant (Jagir). He further submitted that the Matmi issued under Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, in favour of Raja Ishwari Singh vide Ex.A-1 also did not include the said suit property known as Raja Udai Singhji Ki Haveli. The trial court further held that the notification dated 2.2.1949 relied upon by the defendant and which is reproduced hereunder also did not support the case of the defendant because despite the said notification dated 2.2.1949 after 6 years when the Board of Revenue issued Matmi in favour of Raja Ishwari Singh on 21.11.1955, it did not include the said suit property in the said order granting Matmi in favour of defendant Ishwari Singh. The court further held that the said notification sated 2.2.1949 was not proved before the trial court. The notification dated 2.2.1949 is reproduced hereunder: BOARD OF REVENUE Notification Jaipur, the 2nd Feb. 1949 No. 1523/B.R. it is hereby notified for general information that in supersession of previous orders on the subject, Government have been pleased to direct that: (a) Houses, and (b) lands for residential purposes for the purpose of laying garden, granted by the State free of Nazrana in Jaipur City its suburbs (other than plots given under the Urban assessment scheme) are subject to Matmi. Government have further directed that where a State Grantee has owned a house or houses in Jaipur City from (a long time past), the house or houses will be regard as part of the state grant and the Matmi proceedings will equally apply to the said house or houses, and the state grantee has no right, of alienation in the property. When the State grant is resumed, the houses will also be resumed as part of the state grant, unless the state grantee can prove that he acquired the house or houses in the city or its suburbs by purchase from saving. J.N. Sachdev Revenue Secretary to the Government of Jaipur" 9. The Board of Revenue granted Matmi in favour of defendant No.1 on 21.11.1955 vide Ex.A-1 which is also reproduced hereunder: IN THE BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN CASE NO. 84/MTML OR YEAR, 1955. Matmi of Raja Bishen Singh Ji or Bijalpura in Favour of Raja Isheri Singh Ji, Tehsil Chaksu. Present : Kanwar Bahadur, I.A.S., Member. B.S. Ranawat, R.A.S. Member Shri Gopi Chand Vakil Thikana, Raja Bishan Singh, the last Matmidar died on 26.6.1947 and his real son Raja Ishri Singh applied for Matmi in respect of the following grants: 1 Village Bichi with Bid in Jaipur in Tankha Tan of Rs. 1,987/4/6 Tan of Rs. 888/4- Rs. 2,875/8/6. 2 Village Gunwar in Tankha Tan of Rs. 1,000/- 3 Village Hatod in Jagir Tan of Rs. 2,179/6/- 4 Some Bagh (Garden) land in village Jamdoli 25 Bighas 5 Some Barani land in Village Jamdoli 50 Bighas 6 Some land in Village Bhawani Shankerpura 6 Bighas 18 biswas 10 biswansi 2. The Revenue Board after examining the tenure of the grant proposed that matmi may be sanctioned in favour of the applicant. The case was submitted to the Revenue Secretary for obtaining the approval of His Highness the Raj Pramukh as the applicant was a Tazmi Sardar. Subsequently, the Revenue Secretary made certain queries and the same were replied by the Board in their order dated 22nd February, 1955. In the meantime the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Ordinance, 1955 came into force and the case was returned under Section (d) to the Revenue Board for final disposal. Subsequently, the Revenue Secretary made certain queries and the same were replied by the Board in their order dated 22nd February, 1955. In the meantime the Rajasthan Jagir Decisions and Proceedings Validation Ordinance, 1955 came into force and the case was returned under Section (d) to the Revenue Board for final disposal. We have examined the record of the case and endorse the recommendation of the Revenue Board dated 5.5.52 and hereby sanction Matmi in the name of Raja Ishri Singhji in respect of grants as recommended by the Collector on recovery of Rs. 3098/6/6 on account Matalba Matmi. Dated 21.11.55. Sd/ B.S. Ranawat Member Sd/ Kanwar Bahadur Member. 10. The perusal of these two documents reproduced above also shows that the suit property was not included in the said Matmi as a part of State Grant but pertained to several lands and baghs (garden) and barani land etc. In 1955 admittedly, defendant No.1 had become a major, and, therefore, if the said suit property was to be treated as part of the State Grant, he would have applied to the Board of Revenue for necessary amendment to include the suit property as part of the State Grant. 11. That the Jagirs (State Grant) were also abolished in the State of Rajasthan by enactment of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Jagir Resumption Act, 1952 as done in other States also during contemporary period after the Constitution of India came into force on 26.1.1950. Therefore, it would be appropriate to refer to some of the cases decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard to ascertain the character of the Jagir property and joint family properties as several cases of partition of this nature reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and have been decided from time to time. 12. In (2) Nagesh Bisto Devi etc. etc., v. Khando Tirmal Desai etc. etc. ( AIR 1982 SC 887 ) , the Supreme Court has held as under : "The mere fact that an estate is impartable does not make it the separate and exclusive property of the holder; where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint estate of the undivided family. etc. ( AIR 1982 SC 887 ) , the Supreme Court has held as under : "The mere fact that an estate is impartable does not make it the separate and exclusive property of the holder; where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint estate of the undivided family. The grant of watan to the eldest member of a family does not make the watan properties the exclusive property of the person who is the watandar for the time being. AIR 1921 PC 62 , Rel. on (Paras 16, 19). The property though impartable may be the ancestral property of the joint Hindu family. The impartibility of property does not per se destroy its nature as joint family property or render it the separate property of the last holder, so as to destroy the right of survivorship hence the estate retains its character of joint family property and devolves by the general law upon that person who being in fact and in law joint in respect of the estate is also the senior member in the senior line (Para 18) In order to establish that an impartable estate has ceased to be joint family property for purposes of succession, it is necessary to prove the intention, express or implied, on the part of the junior members of the family to give up their chance of succeeding to the estate. The test to be applied is whether the facts show a clear intention to' renounce or surrender any interest in the impartable estate or a relinquishment of the right of succession and an intention to impress upon the Zamindari the character of separate property. AIR 1952 SC 29 , Rel. on (Para 22)." 13. In (3) Dattatraya alias Prakash and others v. Krishna Rao alias Lala Saheb Baxi through L.Rs., etc. etc. [ AIR 1991 SC 1972 ] , (two Judges Bench), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under : The income of an impartable estate is not income of the undivided family but is the income of the present holder, notwithstanding that he has sons or brothers from whom he is not divided. etc. [ AIR 1991 SC 1972 ] , (two Judges Bench), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under : The income of an impartable estate is not income of the undivided family but is the income of the present holder, notwithstanding that he has sons or brothers from whom he is not divided. The fact that the son's or brother's right to maintenance arises out of the eldest brother's possession of impartable estate and is a right to be maintained out of the estate do not make it a right of a unique or even exceptional character or involve the consequence at Hindu Law that the income of the estate is not the holder's income. Income is not jointly enjoyed by the party entitled to maintenance and the party chargeable nor can it be said that the respective chance of each son to succeed by survivorship make them all co-owners of the income with their father or make the holder of the estate a manager on behalf of a Hindu Family of which he and they are the male members of the family. The holder of impartable estate can incorporate other properties belonging to him with that estate so as to make them also impartable and descendable to a single heir by survivorship. It is one of intentions to be proved as fact whether the accretions are his separate properties or incorporated as part of impartible estate. The intention may be express or implied by conduct or treatment of the properties. (Paras 23, 24, 28) The right of joint enjoyment which is ordinary incident to a coparcenary, where the joint estate is partible, is excluded by the rule of primogeniture and imparibility. The income of an impartible estate and the accumulation of such income are the absolute property of the holder. The immovable properties would be incorporated with impartible estate. It must be proved that the holder had impressed the immovable properties as part of the estate. But the movable properties will not. Movables are not an accretion to the estate as in the case of an ordinary joint family estate. Thus the jagir grant is indivisible and impartible and succeeded by lineal eldest descendent of the family by rules of primogeniture. But the movable properties will not. Movables are not an accretion to the estate as in the case of an ordinary joint family estate. Thus the jagir grant is indivisible and impartible and succeeded by lineal eldest descendent of the family by rules of primogeniture. The properties so held by the successor are not the joint family properties but are his separate properties and the heirs of his brother had no right to a share therein as a coparcener." 14. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the later Judgment (three Judges Bench) (Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy being a common member of the Bench) in (4) Annasaheb Bapuraheb Patil & Others v. Balwant alias Balasaheb Babusaheb Patil (dead) by LRs. & heirs etc. [ AIR 1995 SC 895 ] , Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy, author of both the Judgments held in para 5 of the Judgment like this, which is reproduced hereunder: "In Dattatraya v. Krishna Rao, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 32 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswami, J.) was a Member, was to consider the rule of primogeniture extensively and held at p. 39 that there are estates which by special law,or custom descent to senior-most member of the family, generally the eldest, to the exclusion of the other members and which are impartible, though they are joint family property, 4n the eye of the law, belonging equally to the other members, and their rights are hedged in by a number of restrictions or limitations. It was further held at P. 42 in para 18 that the impartible estate, though descends by rule of primogeniture and survivorship on the eldest male member of the family it must also be proved that the junior members gave up expressly or by implication his right to a share therein. An impartible estate may be created by a grant or by custom. It is a creature of custom In the case of ordinary joint family property, the members of the family have the right to partition and the righf of survivorship. The right to partition cannot exist in the case of impartible estate. The pre-existing law attached the property, movable or immovable, by grant etc. to the watan for rendering service by the watandar. The right to partition cannot exist in the case of impartible estate. The pre-existing law attached the property, movable or immovable, by grant etc. to the watan for rendering service by the watandar. As its concomitance recognised the rule of primogeniture and by its operation, the eldest male member in the family or the eldest in the first branch gets the right to watan and the property attached to the watan would be enjoyed as an incidence of or consequential to his rendering watan service. The statute also can abrogate the operation of the custom and succession to watan property by rule of primogeniture and the Act in fact did achieve that object, abolished the office of watan and liabilities appertaining to it including the burden of service and made the lands ryotwari lands. On regrant the erstwhile watander holds the lands for and on behalf of the Hindu Joint family impressed, with the character as joint family property." 15. The similar position was expressed in (5) Baijnath Prasad Singh and others v. Tej Bali Singh [AIR 1921 Privy Council, 62] which reads as under : "The fact that a raj is impartible does not make it separate or self acquired property; a raj, though impartible, may be in fact be self acquired or it may be family property of a joint undivided family; if it is the latter, succession will be regulated according to the rule which obtains in an undivided joint family, so far as the selection of the person entitled to succeed is concerned, i.e. the person will be designated by survivorship although then, according to the custom of impartibility, he will hold the raj without the others sharing it." 16. As against the aforesaid case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (6) PT. Jayvant Rao and Others v. PT. Chandra Kant Rao and others [ 1970 (1) SCC 702 ] , a case pertaining to Kota, Rajasthan. M.M. Ranjan, Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (6) PT. Jayvant Rao and Others v. PT. Chandra Kant Rao and others [ 1970 (1) SCC 702 ] , a case pertaining to Kota, Rajasthan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with construction of the order dated 23.3.1938 passed by Maharao of Kota directing that "Sarola Jagir" which till then remained the joint family property, should be given the status of a impartible estate governed by the Rule of primogeniture, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order was clearly an exercise of legislative power by which the Ruler was competent to lay down the that though the Jagir had in the past been joint family property, it was to be thereafter impartible property governed by the rule of primogeniture and Chandrakant Rao as the eldest member of the senior branch was to be the Jagirdar. The said order dated 23.1.1938 was thus held to be not an administrative order but a legislative piece. 17. Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal, who very ably argued the case of defendant appellant urged that it is wrong to state by the plaintiff-respondents that Maji Sahiba Panwar Ji requested His Highness to divide the properties vide letter i.e. Exhibit-16. A bare perusal of Exhibit-16 would go to show that Maji Sahiba Panwar Ji never requested His Highness to divide the property in dispute rather it was a request for facilitating the division of Jagir itself and to issue Matmis in favour of Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh. That the property in question was purchased from time to time from Jagir income and it is a settled proposition of law that any property purchased out of the income/funds of any estate has to be treated as an accretion to the estate. Similarly, in the instant case the subject property has to be treated as the property of Jagir therefore, the property in dispute cannot be impressed with the character of a Joint Hindu Family property, without any convincing evidence. In the cases of Jagirs, the concept of joint Hindu family was not in existence at all. That Raja Bishan Singh passed away on 26th of June, 1947 leaving behind his widow Smt. Preetam Kanwarji and three sons namely, Kanwar Ishwari Singh, Kanwar Hari Singh and Kanwar Dharam Singh. In the cases of Jagirs, the concept of joint Hindu family was not in existence at all. That Raja Bishan Singh passed away on 26th of June, 1947 leaving behind his widow Smt. Preetam Kanwarji and three sons namely, Kanwar Ishwari Singh, Kanwar Hari Singh and Kanwar Dharam Singh. Kanwar Dharam Singh went in adoption to Raja Kishan Singh and in respect of Thikana Beechi Matmi was issued in favour of Raja Ishwari Singh being the eldest on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture. At the time of death of Raja Bishan Singh, Raja Ishwari Singh was a minor, however, on the basis of existing system, the application for Matmi was moved within 30 days i.e. on 26th July, 1947, of the demise of Raja Bishan Singh. Since Raja Ishwari Singh was a minor, therefore, Court of Wards was appointed and immediately upon attaining majority, the Thikana was handed over to Raja Ishwari Singh. During this intervening period, recommendation for Matmi was made on 5.5.1952 by the Board of Revenue and the matter was referred to the Revenue Secretary and upon his reply the matter was considered and finally Matmi was issued on 21.11.1955. That after the application for Matmi was moved on 26th July, 1947, a notification was issued by the Board of Revenue of Jaipur State on 2nd of February, 1949 directing that the houses situated in the Jaipur City for long shall also be considered as State Grants. Since the application for Matmi was moved prior to the notification during the minority of Raja Ishwari Singh, therefore, the subject property was not included in the application moved for Matmi and the Court below without appreciating these facts proceeded to decide the matter on the assumption that non-inclusion of the subject property in the order of Matmi should be deemed to have been rejected by the Board of Revenue. The notification dated 2.2.1949 clearly states that where state grantee has owned a house or houses in Jaipur City from a long time past, the house or houses in Jaipur City will be regarded as part of the state grant and the Matmi proceedings will equally apply to the 'said house or houses. The notification dated 2.2.1949 clearly states that where state grantee has owned a house or houses in Jaipur City from a long time past, the house or houses in Jaipur City will be regarded as part of the state grant and the Matmi proceedings will equally apply to the 'said house or houses. Issuance of Matmi was only consequential to' the notification, which decided the characters of the property and only because the property in question has not been included in the order of Matmi, it cannot be said that it was not a jagir property. Otherwise also, there is no order to the contrary that it is not the jagir property. The contention of the plaintiff-respondent that the notification dated 2.2.1949 has no legal sanctity is not tenable at all. The notification dated 2.2.1949 is a public document, which is more than 30 years old, therefore, under the law of evidence, presumption of correctness of the same has to be drawn. The notification was issued under the order/direction of His Highness, Jaipur and His Highness, Jaipur had unlimited sovereign powers before the Constitution of India came into force on 26.1.1950. As the notification was issued prior to coming into force of the Constitution of India, therefore, the notification dated 2.2.1949 is law and is a valid document, which cannot be questioned by the plaintiff-respondents. That the learned trial court below erred in framing issue No.1 and accordingly, placed burden on the defendant. In fact, in view of the settled legal position of the existence of the Rule of Primogeniture in the State of Rajasthan in Rajasthan, it is not required to be proved as it existed. The Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the law of rule of primogeniture in the State of Rajasthan in the case titling Pandit Jayvant Rao and Others v. Pandit Chandra Kant Rao & others 1970 (1) SCC 702 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para No. 4 had held that according to the customs of the States in Rajputana the eldest son of the Senior Branch alone was entitled to hold the property. The rule of primogeniture was in vogue in the State of Rajputana, it was a rule of law, which was not required to be proved by the defendant- appellants. The rule of primogeniture was in vogue in the State of Rajputana, it was a rule of law, which was not required to be proved by the defendant- appellants. Even if it is assumed for a moment that it was a customary law then also in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 1970 (1) SCC 702 , the rule of primogeniture was an established custom prevailing in the State of Rajputana which was not required to be further proved by the defendant-appellants. The plaintiff-respondents have relied upon para 3 of the judgment RLW 1961 F.B. 168 wherein on the death of Jagirdar Nahar Singh who was a 'Panchapana Sardar' of Shekhawati, the Thikana was divided amongst his four sons, therefore, has pleaded that the property of Late Raja Bishan Singh Ji is also liable to be divided amongst all the heirs. The appellant-defendants are also relying on the said judgment. It is pertinent to mention here that the 'Panchpana Sardars' of Shekhawati and the Bhomias of Udaipurwati were the exceptions to the rule of primogeniture in the State of Jaipur, therefore, the said judgment does not help-the plaintiff-respondents at all rather it supports the appellant-defendants. In para No. 12 of the said judgment Rule 13 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 has been considered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court according to which the eldest son of the last holder is entitled to succeed except the Panchpana Sardars of Shekhawati and Bhomias of Udaipurwati. In para No. 12 of the said judgment Rule 13 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 has been considered by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court according to which the eldest son of the last holder is entitled to succeed except the Panchpana Sardars of Shekhawati and Bhomias of Udaipurwati. Rule 13 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 is being reproduced hereunder: "The eldest real son of the last holder or if such son is dead, such son's eldest real son or eldest real grand-son is entitled to succeed, unless in the opinion of the Ruler he is unfitted to succeed by reason of serious mental or physical defect or disloyalty; Provided, firstly that in the case of the Panchpana Sardars of Shekhawati and the Bhomias of Udaipurwati, the grant shall devolve on all the surviving real sons and the real sons or grand sons of proceeded sons of the last holder in accordance with local custom unless in any particular case His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur has recognised that the ordinary rule of succession by male lineal primogeniture shall apply-" Exhibit A-14 to the Exhibit A-28 disclose the sources of income of Thikana and evidence of purchase of property situated near Chhoti Choupar facing towards Amber which is the subject property, from the funds/income of Thikana. Therefore, the presumption should be drawn that the subject property is property of Thikana and the same is impartible and governed by the Rule of primogeniture. That though the plaintiff has claimed 1/2 share in the suit property and Pritam Kanwar remained ex-parte without filing her written statement still the learned trial court has granted ⅓rd share of Maji Preetam Kanwar without assigning any reason for the same. The fact of death of Raja Bishan Singh on 26.6.1947 has come on record and there is no controversy that at the time of death of Raja Bishan Singh Rule of Primogeniture was in vogue and the Hindu Law of Succession came into force only in the year 1956. Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 carved out an exception for the succession where even other brothers were not entitled to succeed, then how could a lady get equal share, therefore, Maji Preetam Kanwar was in any event not entitled for ⅓rd share. 18. In the opinion of this Court the judgment in Pt. Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 carved out an exception for the succession where even other brothers were not entitled to succeed, then how could a lady get equal share, therefore, Maji Preetam Kanwar was in any event not entitled for ⅓rd share. 18. In the opinion of this Court the judgment in Pt. Jayvant Rao's case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant is distinguishable inasmuch as there is no such order like the one passed by Maharao of Kota on 23.3.1938 is coming up for construction by this Court as to whether the same is legislative piece or an executive order as was the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on the other hand the said judgment in Pt. Jayvant Rao' case also throws light on the fact that if the Jagirdar had their separate joint family property separate and independent from the Jagir property and unless it was imbued and impregnated with the character of Jagir property as was done in that case with respect to Sarola Jagir, it could continue to be a joint family property. The case set up in the present case by the plaintiff is not with respect to Jagir property at all. On the other hand it talks of Udai Singhji Ki Haveli purchased by late Raja Narsingh Das Ji and some part purchased and constructed by Raja Udai Singhji which was partitioned between the two brothers Raja Kishan Singh Ji and Raja Bishan Singh Ji in 1932. The rule of primogeniture applies only to Jagir (State Grant) property and not to other property of Jagirdars. 19. At best the contention of the appellant defendant that the notification dated 2.2.1949 automatically converted the character of joint family property into a Jagir property could possibly bring the case of the appellant defendant within the scope of the aforesaid judgment it Pt. Jayvant Rao's case. But it is not so. Firstly, the said notification dated 2.2.1949 was neither proved before the trial court, nor does it disclose that the same is issued by the Ruler of the Jaipur State nor it is signed by the Ruler. It is signed by Revenue Secretary Mr. J.N. Sachdev. Jayvant Rao's case. But it is not so. Firstly, the said notification dated 2.2.1949 was neither proved before the trial court, nor does it disclose that the same is issued by the Ruler of the Jaipur State nor it is signed by the Ruler. It is signed by Revenue Secretary Mr. J.N. Sachdev. Even if it is taken to be admissible in evidence and taken as issued on behalf of the Ruler, the exception clause of the said notification clearly shows that if the State Grantee can show that the house or houses were purchased from their savings, the said property could not be treated as part of the State Grant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has rightly submitted that the suit property in question is governed by the exception part of the said notification dated 2.2.1949. In view of the said notification dated 2.2.1949, if it was to apply to the suit property, the Matmi order passed by the Board of Revenue on 21.11.1955 Ex.A/1 would have certainly included the said suit property in the Matmi order. But it is not so. Therefore, this court concludes by holding that the suit property did not become part of the State Grant (Jagir) ipso facto by the notification dated 2.2.1949. The evidence produced by the parties before the trial court on the other hand weighs heavily in favour of the plaintiff that the said property was not a part of Jagir or accretion thereto but were purchased by the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant out of their savings and these properties were never treated as Jagir property or State Grant. Ex. 14 to 28 produced by the defendant are extracts from the Jagir Bahi (the original book was also produced in the Court) only proves that the said book was maintained during contemporary period by Jagirdar for keeping of jagir receipts and expenditure. No specific entry in the said book in Ex.14 through Ex.28 proves purchase of any part of suit property known as Udai Singhji Ki Haveli; out of Jagir funds. Therefore, question of treating the said property to become a part of State Grant (Jagir) does not arise. Further, defendant-appellant has failed to prove the express or implied consent of the plaintiff to treat the suit property as part of Jagir or having relinquished his rights in the said joint family property. Therefore, question of treating the said property to become a part of State Grant (Jagir) does not arise. Further, defendant-appellant has failed to prove the express or implied consent of the plaintiff to treat the suit property as part of Jagir or having relinquished his rights in the said joint family property. Therefore, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law cited above, the right of partition cannot be denied to the plaintiff in respect of the said suit property, which is not proved to be part of Jagir or State Grant. Neither in Matmi orders nor any document relating to Jagir resumption, the said suit property is included as part of Jagir. Though the provisions of Jaipur Succession Act, 1943 Part-V relating to intestate succession are not applicable to property of any Hindu, Mohammadan, Buddist, Sikh or Jain vide Section 29(1) of the said Act, therefore, in the present case, but even without that the normal rule of Hindu Succession by survivorship would apply and therefore the plaintiff is held entitled to claim partition of the joint family property. Therefore, the suit property cannot be said to be of impartable character and treating the same as joint Hindu property, the Trial court rightly allowed the partition in respect of thereof between the mother Smt. Pritam Kanwar and two brothers Raja Ishwari Singh and Raja Hari Singh in ⅓rd share of each upon the death of Raja Bishan Singhji on 26.6.1947. The said issues No.1, 8 and 10 are, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent accordingly and against the defendant and finding of trial court on these issues are affirmed. 20. Issue No. 2 With respect to issue No. 2, as to whether the partition between the two brothers Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh had taken place on 19.2.1932 and 21.21932 the perusal of Ex.18 and Ex.19 is relevant. Though both these documents were earlier impounded as they were not stamped in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Pet. No. 199/1963 Ishwari Singh v. Hari Singh , allowed by this Court on 5.11.1965, but the plaintiff appears to have stamped it later on and paid penalty of Rs. 325/- also as determined by the Collector, as it would appear from the order-sheet entry dated 22.9.71 of the trial court. No. 199/1963 Ishwari Singh v. Hari Singh , allowed by this Court on 5.11.1965, but the plaintiff appears to have stamped it later on and paid penalty of Rs. 325/- also as determined by the Collector, as it would appear from the order-sheet entry dated 22.9.71 of the trial court. Thus they were taken as admissible evidence and were produced in Ex.18 and 19 in the Paper Book produced by Mr. Ranjan. Ex.18 and Ex.19 are both signed by both the brothers on the aforesaid dates namely Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh & that clearly shows that both the brothers had clearly partitioned their immovable property by specifying the same in the said documents and the said partition was facilitated by active intervention and advice of Maji Sahib Panwarji as would appear from her letter to Raja Udai Singh Ji Ex.16, PW-2 Man Mohan, PW-3 Durga Prasad, PW-5 Dhanna Lal and PW-6 Sheoraj Singh, all elderly and senior citizens having their age group of 60 to 80 years when produce before the trial court, also supported the said fact of partition between the two brothers as indicated in Ex.18 and Ex.19. The defendant No.1 Ishwari Singh who was only 15 years of age at the time when his father Raja Bishan Singh died on 26.6.1947, could not disprove these documents nor could he controvert the aforesaid witnesses produced in support of the plaintiff in any manner. Both the brothers Ishwari Singh and Hari Singh were not even born in 1932 when the said partition took place. Admittedly on 26.6.47 when Raja Bishan Singh died, since defendant No. 1 Ishwari Singh was also minor, the property was managed by Court of Wards and it came back to him only when he became major and the Matmi order was passed on 21.11.1955 as noted above. Thus the learned trial court was right in finding that there was a partition between two brothers Raja Kishan Singh and Raja Bishan Singh in the year 1932 and this finding in affirmed by this court on the basis of the evidence which came before the court below. 21. Issue No. 3 Issue No.3 is in relation to Schedule 'Cha' property and the same was gifted by Raja Bishan Singh to his wife defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar. 21. Issue No. 3 Issue No.3 is in relation to Schedule 'Cha' property and the same was gifted by Raja Bishan Singh to his wife defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar. The trial court had decided this issue against the plaintiff and found that it is not proved that the said property was gifted by Raja Bishan Singh to his wife. Though the trial court found that PW-1, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 had stated before the court that a document of such gift was also executed by Raja Bishan Singh in favour of his wife but since such document was not produced before the trial court and Smt. Pritam Kanwar herself was also not examined therefore, the factum of such gift was not proved. 22. This court has gone through the statements of PW-1 Hari Singh, plaintiff himself, PW-3 Durga Prasad, Commissioner, PW-6 Kishan Singh and PW-7 Sultan Singh. All the four witnesses have categorically stated without any contradiction either in the cross-examination or by the defence witnesses that the property mentioned in Schedule 'Cha' was gifted by Raja Bishan Singh to his wife Smt. Pritam Kanwar and she continued to be in possession of the said property and also realised rent from the part of it. Plaintiff Hari Singh, PW-1 has also stated that even the house tax in respect of the said portion was paid by her and upon the death of Raja Bishan Singhji when the charge of the property was taken. by the Courts of Wards, the possession of the property mentioned in Schedule 'Cha' was not taken as the same was gifted to Smt. Pritam Kanwwar. PW-3 Durga Prasad, Commissioner, visited the site on 9.9.1962 and has also stated that Raja Bishan Singh during his life time had gifted the property to his wife namely two garages in Neem Ka Chowk, shop given to Gendi Lal Pansari, one garage behind the Haveli which was called 'Bagh' and was also known as Nohra and writing (gift-deed) in this regard was executed by Mohan Lal son of Kalyan Kayasth. The said Mohan Lal, PW-2 has also in his cross-examination on 5.9.1962 has stated that the said property was gifted and a 'Patta' was given by Raja Bishan Singhji in the year 1947 about 2-3 months before his death on a plain paper. The said property was also not taken by the Court of Wards. The said Mohan Lal, PW-2 has also in his cross-examination on 5.9.1962 has stated that the said property was gifted and a 'Patta' was given by Raja Bishan Singhji in the year 1947 about 2-3 months before his death on a plain paper. The said property was also not taken by the Court of Wards. He has also stated that in the shop, Gandi Lal was a tenant. Likewise, PW-6 Sheoraj Singh has also supported the said factum of gift by Raja Bishan Singhji and same was supported by PW-7 Sultan Singh who was brother-in-law of Raja Bishan Singhji. Thus all these witnesses have categorically proved the fact of gift of property mentioned in the Schedule 'Cha' by Raja Bishan Singhji to his wife without any contradiction. Therefore, merely, because the gift-deed itself was not produced before the trial court, the trial court could not have held, in the opinion of this court, that there was no gift of the said property. The gift could be made inter vivos orally as well as in writing. Therefore merely because the gift-deed though said to have been executed but was not produced before the trial court, but the fact of gift was proved by all the aforesaid five witnesses, the said fact of gift could not have been ignored by the trial court. This court is also of the opinion that mere non-confirmation of the said gift by the donee, Smt. Pritam Kanwar herself by examining herself before the trial court is also not sufficient to hold such gift as not proved. This court is, therefore, of the opinion that the issue No.3 stands wrongly decided by the trial court against the plaintiff by holding that the fact of gift by Raja Bisdhan Singhji to his wife Pritam Kanwar of the property mentioned in the Schedule 'Cha' is not proved. The said finding is therefore, liable to be reversed and decided in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly the issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 23. Issue No.4. In view of the issue Nos. The said finding is therefore, liable to be reversed and decided in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly the issue No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 23. Issue No.4. In view of the issue Nos. 1, 8 and 10 decided in favour of the plaintiff that he is entitled to partition of joint family property, issue No.4 is bound to be decided against the defendant to the effect that plaintiff was not merely entitled to reside in the suit property as 'Chuttbhaiya' by the permission of defendant No. 1 and the said issue is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiff and the finding of the trial court in this regard is confirmed. 24. Issue No. 5. The trial court has found that the parties have not pressed the said issue and accordingly, this Court is not called upon to decide the same issue again either way. 25. Issue No. 6. The said issue relates to partial partition and the same has been decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. This Court is of the opinion that there is no question of partial partition arising in the case and since the entire property which was not subject matter of State Grant has to be treated as joint Hindu Family property liable to partition except the property given in gift by Raja Bisan Singhji to his wife Smt. Pritam Kanwar, the said issue is decided accordingly. 26. Issue No. 11 & 13. The said issue pertains to adverse possession of defendant No.1 and accordingly whether the suit has been filed within limitation. The said issues have been decided by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. In the opinion of this Court the trial court has rightly decided that the defendant No.1 was not entitled to claim adverse possession either against qua his father Raja Bishan Singhji or against the plaintiff Raja Hari Singhji. 27. Issue No. 12 The said issue regarding estoppel of the plaintiff has also been decided against the defendant. In the opinion of this Court the trial court has rightly decided that the defendant No.1 was not entitled to claim adverse possession either against qua his father Raja Bishan Singhji or against the plaintiff Raja Hari Singhji. 27. Issue No. 12 The said issue regarding estoppel of the plaintiff has also been decided against the defendant. The trial court has decided that after the death of Raja Bishan Singh on 26.6.1947, merely because the plaintiff did not claim a share in the property and continued to treat his elder brother Raja Ishwari Singh as the successor to the said property and he did not claim even the maintenance, it does not matter because the plaintiff was entitled to claim partition of the suit property which was joint Hindu Family property. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff could not be said to be merely 'chuttbhaiya' and was only entitled to the right of residence and right of maintenance from the defendant. 28. Issue No. 14. The said issue pertains to one Dharam Singh going into adoption to Raja Kishan Singh Ji and since the defendant had admitted the factum of such adoption in his written statement Ex.21, he was bound by the same and therefore, the said issue has also rightly been decided against the defendant. The finding of trial court is, therefore, confirmed. 29. Issue No. 15 This issue was decided against the defendant as no objection was raised thereto from the side of defendant. The same does not call for any interference by this Court. 30. Issue No. 16 & 17. These issues pertain to jurisdiction and relief. The same also do not require any interference by this Court and the trial court has rightly decreed the suit as aforesaid. 31. Issue No. 9 This issue pertains to movable property. This Court is of the opinion that the trial court has considered the entire relevant evidence in this regard and has decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff and the same also does not call for any interference. 32. Cross objections The defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar has filed cross-objections in this appeal through Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate on 27.10.1980. 32. Cross objections The defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar has filed cross-objections in this appeal through Mr. B.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate on 27.10.1980. In the said objections the defendant No.2 has pointed out that the learned trial court while decreeing the partition suit has erred in not giving direction to the Commissioner that while allotting the property according to the shares, the possession of the parties over their respective portions over which they have been in possession ought not be disturbed and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court ought to have ordered the maintenance of the possession of the objector respondent over the property allotted in her share to remain in her possession. 33. That during the pendency of this appeal, the said defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar w/o Late Raja Bishan Singh ji had unfortunately expired on 18.1.1991. Therefore, application to bring her L.R. Shri Raghvendra Singh on record was filed by the plaintiff. On the said application this Court vide order dated 15.4.1991 directed the trial court to record evidence and send its report about the Will executed by defendant No. 2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar in favour of Shri Raghuvendra Singh, who claimed to be brought on record in place of defendant No.2. The trial court accordingly submitted its reports after recording evidence of parties namely; PW12 Raghuvendra Singh, PW13 Vinod Kumar, PW14- Roop Narain Mathur, PW-15, Sultan Singh, PW16-Kalyan Singh and PW-17 Dr. Avinash Agarwal and DW-1 Raja Ishwari Singh was again examined. The report of learned District Judge dated 6.12.1993 forms parts of the record. 34. This Court has gone through the statements recorded by the trial court and has also perused the said Will, Ex.27, executed by defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar in favour of Raghuvendra Singh. The said will titled 'Nistha Patra' is a typed document in two pages saying that entire movable and immovable property belonging to the said Smt. Pritam Kanwar, after her death may bequeath upon her grand son Mr. Raghuvendra Singh s/o plaintiff Hari Singhji out of her natural love and affection for her grand son. The said Will bears the right hand thumb impression of Maji Sahib Pritam Kanwar and bears seal and signature of Shri Roop Narain Mathur, Notary Public, Jaipur, dated 3.8.1990 and also the certificate by Dr. Raghuvendra Singh s/o plaintiff Hari Singhji out of her natural love and affection for her grand son. The said Will bears the right hand thumb impression of Maji Sahib Pritam Kanwar and bears seal and signature of Shri Roop Narain Mathur, Notary Public, Jaipur, dated 3.8.1990 and also the certificate by Dr. Avinash Agarwal dated 3.8.1990 that he has examined Smt. Pritam Kanwar at her residence on 3.8.1990 and her higher mental functions are normal. The said Will is signed by as many as five witnesses namely; Vinod Kumar, Kalayan Sahai, Jai Singh Punder, Krishan Kumar Punder and Shri Rishal Singh. All witnesses have concurrently proved the execution of the said Will & Dr. Avinash Agarwal has certified her normal mental balance. The photograph Ex. 28 showing her putting her right hand thump impression in the presence of the five witnesses has also been produced and proved before the trial court. The said Will is marked as Ex.27. The aforesaid witness PW12 says that PW17 drafted the said will and PW-17 has proved the same. DW-1 Ishwari Singh was again examined by the trial court in this process who has however, stated that at the time of her death, defendant No.2 was about 80 years of age and had suffered paralytic attack on left side of her body (Will bears the right hand thump impression) and she remained in this position for the last about 2-3 years and that he along with his wife and Hari Singh and their sister Smt. Phool Kanwar looked after her. The said defendant No.1 Ishwari Singh, however, has not disputed and denied the factum of execution of the said Will in his statement. 35. In view of this, the Will Ex.27 executed by defendant No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar, in favour of her grand son Shri Raghuvendra Singh is treated as proved and Shri Raghuvendra Singh is allowed to be taken on record as her legal representative and the share belonging to Smt. Pritam Kanwar according to the said Will would bequeath upon her grand son Shri Raghuvendra Singh. 36. The cross-objections are thus allowed as indicated above. 37. Interim Applications : The legal representatives of Defendant-Appellant Shri Pritam have already been taken on record. This Court vide order dated 20.2.2002 (Hon'ble Mr. 36. The cross-objections are thus allowed as indicated above. 37. Interim Applications : The legal representatives of Defendant-Appellant Shri Pritam have already been taken on record. This Court vide order dated 20.2.2002 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.P. Gupta) allowed the application dated 15.3.1991 on death of respondent No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar taking on record both Raghuvendra Singh and Smt. Phool Kanwar daughter of Smt. Pritam Kanwar, on record in place of respondent No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar, who expired on 18.1.1991. However, this Court observed in the said order that the Court was not deciding the rights of inheritance of Smt. Phool Kanwar and Shri Raghuvendra Singh respectively. 38. In view of the findings given above the Will of Respondent No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar in favour of her grand son Shri Raghuvendra Singh giving her entire movable and immovable property to Sh. Rahghvendra Singh, the said issue of inheritance also now stands decided and accordingly, no part of the property of respondent No.2 Smt. Pritam Kanwar is to go to her daughter Smt. Phool Kanwar, though she was taken on record as legal representative of respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.2.2002 Smt. Phool Kanwar, herself expired on 12.5.2007. 39. IA No. 12806 dated 8.5.2007: This application filed under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A an 25 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of the defendants appellants through Mr. Sudhanshu Kasliwal was not pressed during the arguments on 22.5.2007. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 40. IA No. 13414 dated 14.5.2007: The said application under Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A, 24 and 25 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code has been filed by Lhe defendant appellant asking for reframing of the three issues and reman.'.ng the case back for trial court on these issues to the trial court. 41. In view of the detailed findings given above, this is not considered necessary at this stage to reframe the issues as in the opinion of this Court issues already framed and decided cover the complete controversy and there is no need of reframing of such issues. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 42. IA No. 14607 dated 23.5. 41. In view of the detailed findings given above, this is not considered necessary at this stage to reframe the issues as in the opinion of this Court issues already framed and decided cover the complete controversy and there is no need of reframing of such issues. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 42. IA No. 14607 dated 23.5. 2007 The said application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code seeking to bring on record the certified copy of the order dated 5.5.1952 and certified copy of the order dated 21.11.1955 passed by the Board of Revenue is allowed as these documents have already been considered by this Court while deciding issues No. 1, 8 & 10 as aforesaid. 43. IA No. 14999 dated 26.5.2007 : In the said application it has been brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No.2/1 Smt. Phool Kanwar has also since expired during the pendnecy of this appeal on 12.5.2007. It was, therefore, prayed that L.Rs. of Smt. Phool Kanwar be brought on record. Since this Court found that Smt. Phool Kanwar was not entitled to any property of Smt. Pritam Kanwar given by the Will in favour of Shri Raghvendra Singh the said application does not deserve to be allowed. The said application is therefore rejected. 44. IA No. 15270 dated 28.5.2007: This application filed by plaintiff respondent under Order 22 Rule 4(4) Civil Procedure Code to exempt the substitution of L.R. of Smt. Phool Kanwar is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid application No. 14999 dated 26.5.2007. 45. Thus, all the interim applications stand disposed of as aforesaid. 46. In view of the aforesaid findings, this appeal of the defendant is dismissed except to the extent of issue No.3 regarding gift by Raja Bishan Singhji to his wife Smt. Pritam Kanwar on which the findings of the trial court have been reversed by this Court. No order as to costs. 47. Thus, plaintiff Hari Singh, Defendant Ishwari Singh through his legal representatives and Shri Raghvendra Singh, will be entitled to ⅓rd (one-third) share of the suit property. Decree be made accordingly. Steps be taken for preparation of final decree after report of the Commissioner and the same be expedited, as the suit pertains to the year 1961 and final decree be made within a period of six months from today. Decree be made accordingly. Steps be taken for preparation of final decree after report of the Commissioner and the same be expedited, as the suit pertains to the year 1961 and final decree be made within a period of six months from today. Record of the case be sent back to the trial court immediately. 48. Appeal Dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******