Hon'ble VYAS, J.—This first appeal has been filed under Section 96 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.1995 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Original case No. 22/90 whereby the suit for partition of the property and for rendition of accounts has been partly decreed. 2. According to the facts of the case, a suit for partition was filed by plaintiff-appellant against his three brothers namely Roopa Ram, Kanhaiya Lal and Champa Lal - respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant, it was specifically submitted that his father late Shri Heeralal was having three properties in Jodhpur city and those three properties were located at Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur, one house inside Jalori Gate, near Ghanchiyon ki School, Jodhpur and one Plot No. 61 situated at Milkman Colony, Pal Road, Jodhpur. The description of the property was given by the plaintiff-appellant in para No. 2 of the suit, which is as follows:- ^^2- ;g gS fd LoxhZ; Jh ghjkyky th ds 'kgj tks/kiqj esa rhu tk;nknsa Fkh ftldh rQlh gejk is'k gS& ¼1½ iwoZtksa dh lEifRr tks tkyi ekSgYyk tks/kiqj esa vkbZ gqbZ gS ftldh gnwn fuEufyf[kr gS& ¼v½ iwoZ easa edku dh iwB o mlds vkxs dU;k ikB'kkyk gSA ¼c½ if'pe esa fljs njoktk vkxs lMd gSA ¼l½ mRrj esa tkyi ckoMh dh rjQ tkus okyh lMdA ¼n½ nf{k.k esa iksdjth /kkaph dk edku gSA ¼2½ ,d edku tks tkykSjh xsV ds vUn ?kkaph;ksa dh Ldwy ds ikl gS ftlds gnwn fuEufyf[kr gS& ¼v½ mRrj esa vke jkLrk gS vkSj vkxs lMd gSA ¼c½ iwoZ esa :ikjke iq= Jh pqrjh ?kkaph dk edku gSA ¼l½ if'pe esa cLrhjke th ?kkaph dk edku gSA ¼n½ nf{k.k esa tsB gjyky th ?kkaph dk edku gSA ¼3½ IyksV ua 61 ¼bdlB½ tks feYdeSu dkyksuh iky jksM ds ikl vk;k gqvk gS ftlds gnwn fuEufyf[kr gS& ¼v½ mRrj esa vke lMd gSA ¼c½ nf{k.k esa pEikyky ?kkaph dk edku gSA ¼l½ iwoZ esa jkensoth ?kkaph dk edku gSA ¼n½ nf{k.k esa dqUnu ?kkaph dk edku gSA** 3. In the suit, it is specifically stated that above property No. 1 was ancestral property. The house situated inside Jalori Gate was self acquired property of Late Heeralal and property mentioned at Sl. In the suit, it is specifically stated that above property No. 1 was ancestral property. The house situated inside Jalori Gate was self acquired property of Late Heeralal and property mentioned at Sl. No. 3 situated at Plot No. 61 Milkman Colony, Pal Road, Jodhpur was purchased as per instructions of their father late Shri Heeralal and it is specifically stated that the plaintiff, respondents and their father were living jointly at the relevant time in the year 1958-59 when the said plot was purchased. It is further stated in the suit that all the family members were living jointly with love and affection with respondent No. 1 Roopa Ram- elder brother, therefore, Plot No. 61 situated in Milkman Colony was purchased for joint family in which plaintiff and respondents were having equal share because all the members of the joint family contributed the cost of said plot and amount was deposited in the U.I.T. vide receipt No. 53, Book No. 19713 dated 17.3.1958 though the said property was purchased jointly but receipt was issued by the U.I.T. in the name of respondent No.1 - Rooparam As per the appellant, the cost of plot was paid by all the brothers, therefore, the said property was joint property of all the brothers, therefore, all the sons of Late Shri Heeralal was having equal shares in the said property. 4. 4. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for partition, it was prayed that the petitioner decree may be passed and following prayer was made in the suit:- ¼v½ fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k ckcr foHkktu tk;nkn ua 1 dh ikfjr dh tkdj la;qDr tk;nkn dk foHkktu ckbZ ehVl ,UM cksUMl djk;k tkdj oknh dks mlds fgLls dh tk;nkn 1@4 fgLlk o dCtk fnyk;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djkosaA ¼c½ fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 ¼,d o nks½ ckcr foHkktu tk;nkn ua 3 ikfjr dh tkdj la;qDr tk;nkn dk foHkktu ckbZ ehVl ,UM cksUMl djk;k tkdj oknh dks muds fgLls dh tk;nkn dk 1@3 ¼,d cVk rhu½ fgLlk fnyk;s tkus dh vkKk iznku djkosaA ¼l½ fMØh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh ua- 1 o 2 ¼,d o nks½ ds IyksV ua- 61 ¼bdlB½ ij fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k dk;Z u djs vkSj tks fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k gS mldks /oLFk djk dj IyksV dh iwoZ dh fLFkfr dk;e djkbZ tkosaA ¼n½ la;qDr ifjokj dh py lEifr ls izkIr gqbZ vkenuh izfroknh ua-1 ¼,d½ ls fy;k tkdj fglkc Qsgeh dh tkosa mldh :g ls oknh dks fgLlk fnyk;k tkosaA ¼?k½ [kpkZ eqdnek oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosaA ¼u½ nhxj nknjlh tks eqQhn oknh gks vrk % QjekbZ tkosaA** 5. A written statement to the suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in which it was admitted that the property situated at Jalap Mohalla, Jodhpur and inside Jalori Gate, near Ghanchioyon Ki School, Jodhpur is ancestral property in which all the sons of late Heeralal were having their own share but for plot No. 61 situated at Milkman Colony, Jodhpur, it is specifically replied by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in para No. 4 that the contention of the plaintiff is totally false that the said property was purchased jointly in which all the sons of late Heeralal were having their own share. In fact, it is stated in Para No. 4 of the written that the respondent No. 1 Rooparam has purchased the said plot from his own income and after filling up the form in the year 1958 and receipt was also issued in his name by the U.I.T. and later on patta was also issued in favour of respondent No. 1 Rooparam. It is also stated by the respondents that he is doing business over the plot and for sometime, the plot was giving on rent and he has received the rent from the tenant also. Further, it is stated that plaintiff is in employment and he is not having any business through animals now he is utilizing the said property for any purpose nor he remained in possession of the said property. Therefore, plot No. 61 is his self acquired property. Therefore, assertion made by the plaintiff-appellant in the suit that being elder brother, when patta was issued in favour of respondent No. 1, he has not raised any objection but in fact the said plot was purchased by the respondent No. 1 - Rooparam. In para No. 8 of the written statement, it is specifically stated that before filing the present suit, one suit was filed by the plaintiff when respondent No. 1 was raising construction over the plot. In that suit, the application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court when the fact with regard to purchasing the plot from the U.I.T by the respondent No. 1 was brought to the notice of the trial Court. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff was refutted that all the sons of late Heeralal was having equal share in the Plot No. 61 also. 6. After filing written statement by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a rejoinder was also filed by the plaintiff in which assertion made in the suit was reiterated and it is specifically pleaded that plot No. 61, situated in Milkman colony was joint family property in which all the sons of late Heeralal were having share and being elder brother, the respondent No. 1 Rooparam obtained patta in his favour but in fact, the payment of cost was made by all the brothers and at the time of purchased, no objection was made because all the family members were living jointly with love and affection and respondent No. 1 was elder brother. Therefore, it is prayed by the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court that he is having 1/4 share in the said plot though the patta was issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the U.I.T. but in fact, the consideration was paid by the joint family and unfortunately at the time of purchase, the receipt was issued in favour of respondent No. 1 Rooparam and no objection was raised at that time by the plaintiff-appellant because they were living jointly with love and affection. 7. After filing written statement, as many as eight issues were framed by the trial Court and learned trial Court decreed the suit in part and partition with regard to property mentioned at Sl. No. 1 and 2 situated in Jalap Mohall, Jodhpur, so also, inside Jalori Gate, near Ghanchiyon Ki School was made but the trial Court decided the issue No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1 -Roopa Ram and while holding that the plot No. 61 was purchased by Roopa Ram in which other brothers namely Narayan Singh, Kanhaiyalal and Champalal are not having any share. 8. In this appeal, the plaintiff-appellant is challenging the finding given by trial Court with regard to issue No. 1 and contended that the trial Court has committed an error while deciding the said issue No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1 -Rooparam. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the extent of issue No. 1 may kindly be set aside and the suit of plaintiff for partition in respect of Plot No. 61 may be decreed with cost throughout. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of law and facts in decreeing the suit partly and dismissing the suit in respect of Plot No. 61 by holding that it is a personal property of defendant -respondent No. 1 Rooparam, therefore, plaintiff cannot claim any share in the said property. Further, it is argued that the trial Court has wrongly held that Plot No. 61 was not purchased by late Heeralal, who was the father of the parties, out of the joint family fund. In fact, the trial Court has decided the issue No. 1 against the plaintiff by holding that version of the plaintiff is at variance about the purchase of the property. In fact, the trial Court has decided the issue No. 1 against the plaintiff by holding that version of the plaintiff is at variance about the purchase of the property. As per trial Court, three versions have been given by the plaintiff about the purchase of the plot. First version is that plot was purchased out of fund collected from the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2. The other version given is that it has been purchased by the father and three sons and third version is that it has been purchased by father but in fact, the plot in question was purchased at the cost of Rs. 225/- which was very petty sum. According to plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were living with the family as a member of coparcenery. The plaintiff used to give his salary to his father, who was karta and other member were also giving their income to the father, therefore, the money was in fact given by the father for purchase of the plot to elder son. In these circumstances, the finding of learned trial Court is wholly wrong in holding that the plot in question was purchased by the respondent No. 1. 10. Further, the Court below has committed an error in holding that since there is no mention in the partition deed Ex. 1 dated 1.6.1969 of this plot, it will be presumed that this property was not the joint hindu family property and was self acquired property of Roopa Ram. As per learned counsel for the appellant, it was proved by the plaintiff by cogent evidence that plot No. 61 situated in Milkman Colony was joint Hindu family property and was purchased from the joint fund of the family but due to love and affection at the time of purchase, the receipt was issued in the name of respondent No. 1- Rooparam but this fact is not correct that the said property was self acquired property of respondent No. 1- Rooparam, therefore, the trial Court has committed a gross error while holding that the Plot No. 61 situated at Milkman colony was self acquired property of respondent No.1 - Rooparam. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact five witnesses were produced to prove the case by the plaintiff namely PW-1 Narayan Singh, PW-2 Champalal, PW.3 Sri Kishan, PW. 4 Narayan Singh, PW. 5 Hariram. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact five witnesses were produced to prove the case by the plaintiff namely PW-1 Narayan Singh, PW-2 Champalal, PW.3 Sri Kishan, PW. 4 Narayan Singh, PW. 5 Hariram. From the defendant's side, the statement of respondent No. 1 - Roopa Ram was recorded as DW-1 and statement of Kanhaiyalal was recorded as DW-2 and thereafter the trial Court proceeded to decide the suit issue-wise. 12. As per learned counsel for the appellant, a gross error has been committed by learned trial Court while deciding the Issue No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1 because admittedly in the year 1958, including plaintiff and respondents and late Heeralal- father of the parties were living together in the joint family and plot in question was purchased by the fund of joint family. Therefore, the finding recorded by trial Court for Issue No. 1 deserves to be set aside and the plaintiff-appellant is entitled for his share in plot No. 61 situated in Milkman Colony, Jodhpur. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that finding given by learned trial Court with regard to issue No. 1 is based on sound ground and evidence produced on record. Further, it is submitted that prior to filing this suit, admittedly, a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the respondent No. 1 when he was raising construction over the plot in question. In the said suit, when it was brought to the notice of the trial Court that the plot No. 61 is self acquired property of respondent No. 1 - Rooparam then, application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant was rejected and thereafter, this suit for partition has been filed in which the self acquired property of the respondent No. 1 - Rooparam was made subject matter of the partition suit but in fact, the respondent No. 1 has proved before the Court that Plot No. 61 was purchased by him from the U.I.T. from his own income and patta was issued in his favour in the year 1982, which he has produced on record as Annexure-A/1. Meaning thereby, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the said plot was purchased from the funds of joint family is totally erroneous and have not basis of any evidence. Meaning thereby, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the said plot was purchased from the funds of joint family is totally erroneous and have not basis of any evidence. In this view of the matter, the finding given by learned trial Court with regard to issue No. 1 in which it has been held that the Plot No. 61 situated at Milkman Colony, Jodhpur is self acquired property of respondent No. 1- Rooparam, cannot be treated as joint family property for which any partition decree is required to be made in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is prayed that this appeal may be dismissed with cost. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. It is admitted position of the case that initially receipt for depositing amount was issued by the U.I.T. in the year 1958 in the name of respondent No. 1 Rooparam. The plaintiff-appellant and all the three defendant-respondents are sons of late Heeralal. Out of four sons, plaintiff-appellant and Champalal, their versions is that property was joint family property because it was purchased from the fund of joint family when all the family members were living together in the year 1958, therefore, it is totally irrelevant to say that the receipt was issued in favour of the respondent No.1 and patta was issued in favour of respondent No. 1, which does not create any individual right in favour of the respondent No. 1. Other two brothers namely respondent Nos. 1 and 2, their version is that the said plot No. 61 was purchased by the respondent No. 1 through his own income. Meaning thereby, out of four brothers, two brothers plaintiff-appellant and respondent No. 3 claimed their right on the ground that Plot No. 61 situated at Milkman Colony, Jodhpur was joint family property whereas respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - other two brothers are refuting the same. 16. In my opinion, for adjudicating the controversy, admittedly the circumstances upon which the trial Court has relied upon are correct because in the year 1958, the said plot was purchased and form was filled in, in the name of respondent No. 1 - Rooparam, which is not in dispute. Likewise, receipt was also issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1958, which is also not disputed. Likewise, receipt was also issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1958, which is also not disputed. Further, the documentary evidence Annexure-A/1, which is patta issued in the year 1982 in favour of respondent No.1 clearly speaks that patta was issued in favour of respondent No. 1 in the year 1982. Further, it is also one of the important aspect of the case that prior to filing of this suit, a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the trial Court when respondent No. 1 was raising construction over the plot inquestion upon which the plaintiff is claiming his share, in which the application filed by the plaintiff-appellant for temporary injunction was rejected. All these facts loudly speak that plaintiff has filed this suit to harass the respondent No. 1 and claiming his share in the plot in question. The trial Court has rightly gave finding for issue No. 1 that plaintiff has not proved its case that plot No. 61 situated in Milkman colony, Jodhpur for which patta was in the name of respondent No. 1- Rooparam was joint family property. The finding arrived at by trial Court does not require any interference by this Court because it is based upon material evidence on record, so also, it is a case in which the plaintiff has tried to claim share without any evidence and raised unnecessary litigation knowingly well that patta was issued in favor of the respondent No. 1 by the U.I.T. and initially form was filled in, in the name of respondent No. 1 - Rooparam and receipt was also issued in favour of respondent No.1 Rooparam by the U.I.T., Jodhpur and at that time, the plaintiff-respondent was major and no objection was raised by him. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal. 17. Hence, the finding arrived at by trial Court with regard to issue No. 1 does not required any interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.