3 It is not in dispute between the parties that the suit property was an ancestral property jointly held by the family of the predecessor in title of the Plaintiffs (i.e. one Dattatraya, son of Defendant No.1) and Defendant Nos.1 to 4 (Defendant No.1 being the father and Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4, respectively, being the two brothers and sister of Dattatraya). The property admittedly being a joint family property, Dattatraya, and through him the Plaintiffs, would ordinarily be entitled to 1/5th share thereof. The controversy in this appeal as between the Appellant on one hand and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original Plaintiffs) on the other is that the share of Dattatraya, predecessor of the latter, was already partitioned and given to him during his lifetime. Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for the Appellant, took me through the pleadings and evidence of the parties in this behalf. It is averred in the written statement of Defendant Nos.1 and 4 that the whole of the undivided share of late Dattatraya was, during his lifetime, separated and given to him. On the other hand, the evidence of Defendant Nos.1 to 4 (through Defendant No.1, the father) takes a position that Defendant No.1 had paid from time to time the cash amounts to late Dattatraya and his wife (Plaintiff No.1) in response to his demand for his share in the joint family property; and that Defendant No.1, the father, had spent for medicines of late Dattatraya and Plaintiff No.1, and also given a new rickshaw alongwith its permit to late Dattatraya, and arranged for a
