plaintiff, the five sons should equally take the properties comprised in the Will and enjoy the same and with reference to the abovesaid disposition of the properties, he has no objection and the terms of Ex.A1 Will being in the abovesaid fashion, the claim of the plaintiff that by way of the said Will, his father had bequeathed the suit properties in entirety in his favour, as such ,cannot be readily accepted. Be that as it may, assuming for the sake of arguments that the plaintiff had been bequeathed the suit properties entitling him to take them absolutely in the failure of the other sons discharging the family debts, to evidence that it is only the plaintiff, who had discharged the family debts solely and absolutely, there is no convincing material forthcoming on the part of the plaintiff. Equally, there is no material on the part of the plaintiff to hold that the defendants have not contributed anything for the discharge of the family debts. In this connection, the plaintiff himself had admitted that in Ex.A1, his father had clearly averred as to the debts to be discharged by his five sons and when it is noted that the period of time has also been fixed for the sons to enable them to discharge the debts of the family and when there is no material put forth on the part of the plaintiff that after the period had ended to discharge the family debts and that, it is he, who had discharged the family debts and thereby, entitled to take the properties comprised in Ex.A1 Will i.e. the suit properties and when with reference to the same, absolutely, there is no plea put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint and also no evidence with reference to the same in any manner, particularly, that the other sons had failed to discharge the family debts and that, it is he alone, who had discharged the family debts as outlined in Ex.A1 Will, in such view of the matter, I am unable to accede to the case of the plaintiff that his father had bequeathed the suit properties in his favour under Ex.A1 Will.
