While questioning the findings, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the testimony of DW-1 DW-3 and DW-4 to contend that these have been totally overlooked by the Courts below and if a proper appreciation of the statements of these witnesses is made then it shows that all these witnesses had referred to the partition made by Suchet Singh, the father of the respondents, during his life time implying thereby that all the persons subsequent to the partition were in settled possession of their shares and respondent No.4 voluntarily alienated his share in favour of the appellant. He contends that since these cogent pieces of evidence have been ignored, the findings, which have been recorded by the Courts below, are contrary to the material and evidence on record and therefore, are perverse. He has further referred to the testimony of these witnesses to show that his possession was admitted by these witnesses, who conceded that the appellant has raised construction on the suit property. He, thus, contends that even if it is assumed that there is no partition of the land, yet his valid title and possession, which accrued to him on the basis of sale deed, could not be prejudicially effected by the action of the respondents and that he was entitled to protect his possession. He contends that if the partition is not accepted, even then he is a co-sharer and in view of the fact that the vendor i.e. Fakir Singh was in settled possession of the land, he also would be
