supporting mutation entries and the sale-deeds as well as testimony of defendant No.2. In other words, the defence taken by defendant No.2 is well supported by the documentary evidence in the form of sale-deeds and mutation entries as well as the admissions given by P.W.1 – Chayabai in the cross. Admittedly, Chayabai was not member of the joint family in the year 1969. Therefore, she has no personal knowledge about the same. D.W. - Bhagwan has relied on the mutation entry No.3048 to show that the partition had taken place. It is to be noted that all the three heirs of Ramchandra got equal share. Thereafter, it has come on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence that 40 R land each was sold out of share of Ramchandra to Leelabai Kale and Jankiram Kale at the time of marriage of Kamal i.e. daughter of Ramchandra. Therefore, the holdings of three heirs of Ramchandra reduced to 38 R each. Thereafter, Bhagwan and Kashinath repurchased land admeasuring 1 H 21 R which was sold to Lilabai and Jankiram and, therefore, Bhagwan’s share increased to 99 R and Kashinath’s share went to 98 R. However, at that time, defendant No.1, who was their mother, had not contributed and, therefore, her share remained to 38 R only. Thereafter, Kashinath sold 61 R land to Sairam Vinkar Salesman Co-operative Society and Bhagwan has not received any share from the consideration. Only Kashinath was the executant of that document.
