Legal Dictation from Original Judgment

 That, the dispute has arisen on account of inequitable distribution of the First Floor by their father, wherein two shops are being run by Respondents No.2 and 4 but a portion thereof was not allotted to the Appellant who claims one-third share in it. It was urged that in the alternative, the Respondents are liable to compensate him monetarily for his financial investment in the construction. That, the Appellant furnished sufficient evidence before the Learned Trial Court to establish his case, which was however disregarded. Even assuming that the evidence was inadequate, by right he was entitled to one-third share in his father’s property, which was denied to him. The Learned Trial Court reasoned that Exhibit A said to be executed by the Appellant’s father in their presence, had distributed the property at his discretion. That, the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that exhibit was executed by the Sikkim and not executed between the father and his sons only, dividing the property in metes and bounds. While drawing the attention of this Court to the determination of the Issues framed, it was contended that Issues No.3 and 4 were erroneously concluded observing that the Appellant was not entitled to a share of the schedule, the parties having been given  their respective shares therein. That, the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that his evidence before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, had stated clearly that he would draw up a “Will” later for distribution of the property and Exhibit A was only a stop gap arrangement for the purposes of residence and business not ownership, therefore the question. 

The Appellant having been allotted his respective share did not arise. That, although the Learned Trial Court relied on exhibit, it chose to ignore the deposition with regard to legal distribution of the said property.

In the next leg of his argument, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Learned Trial Court erred in concluding that the Appellant had not constructed the Schedule “A” building when, in fact, adequate evidence including documentary evidence was furnished to buttress this point, hence the Judgment of the Learned Trial Court be set aside and the Appellant be given his fair share. Repelling the arguments of the appellant, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in Prayer of the plaint, he seeks one third-share on the First Floor of the building to be given to him for his absolute occupation and use.