Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiff-respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that he is in possession of 820 square yards area. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this admission of the plaintiff has any bearing on the merits of the suit. Admittedly, the suit plot was purchased in the joint names of both the parties in equal shares. Consequently, the plaintiff had half share in the suit plot and defendant had the other half share therein. Defendant has miserably failed to prove his plea of partition of the suit plot and the second adjoining plot. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the second plot purchased by Arjan Singh in the names of the parties was having area of 500 square yards. It is also contended that the said second plot fell to the share of the plaintiff in partition whereas the entire suit plot measuring 1111 square yards fell to the share of the defendant. This averment would rather disprove the alleged partition. It is not explained as to why the plaintiff would accept 500 square yards area only against area of 1111 square yards of the defendant. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to depict that the second plot measuring 500 square yards has been purchased by Arjan Singh in the names of the parties. Consequently, the second plot has no connection with the partition of the suit plot. The defendant claimed the entire suit plot to be his exclusively on the basis of partition. However, the entire suit plot could not be of the defendant on the basis of partition when the plaintiff has also half share in the suit plot. Thus, plea of
