Deed, which is also not disputed seriously by the plaintiffs, has dismissed the suit in respect of Item Nos.3 and 4 of 'A' schedule property and entire 'B' schedule properties were in possession of the first defendant and the same has also been taken note of by the trial Court. As far as Item No.1 of 'A' schedule property is concerned, it is admitted by the parties that there was a partial oral partition and the first plaintiff has constructed a house in the year 1995 in item No.1 of 'A' schedule property. Though the parties are not disputed the construction of the house by the first plaintiff, the trial Court having found that the house has been constructed in the first item of 'A' schedule property by the first plaintiff, however, declined to allot 'A' schedule property in item No.1 to the first plaintiff, since he has not paid any separate Court fee. However, in para 27, the trial Court has held that item No.1 of 'A' schedule property is to be allotted to the share of the plaintiffs in the final decree proceedings. As the plaintiffs and the defendants have not disputed putting up of construction by the first plaintiff in item No.1 of 'A' schedule property and the shares of the plaintiffs were also determined, this Court is of the view that as the parties are also not disputed about the construction and the investment made by the first plaintiff, the findings of the trial Court that during the final decree proceedings, the first item may be allotted to the first plaintiff in equity towards his share is proper.
