could show that at the time the order of partition was passed, the suit land was not being used for agricultural purposes, but was being used as abadi land. There is, however, no evidence in this behalf nor any such evidence was referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has simply tried to press into service the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. No doubt, defendant No. 1 in his written statement alleged that the installations and structures on the suit land raised by defendant No. 1 were existing for the last 20 years, but this averment made by defendant No. 1 was not binding on defendant No. 2 who had raised the plea that the suit land had already deen partitioned. So, qua defendant No. 2, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of any averment made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. The plaintiff was required to produce some evidence which could show that at the\time the suit land was ordered to be partitioned, it was no more an agricultural land, but was being used as abadi land. There is, however, no such evidence on the record. That being so it is difficult to hold, simply on the basis of the averments made in the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, that the suit land at the time it was ordered to be partitioned by the revenue authorities, was being used as abadi land. Therefore, the order of partition passed by the Revenue Officer cannot be held to be illegal or invalid.”
