________________
"
APPENDIX B.
125
overruled the recorded and emphatic protest of Mr. Bhandarkar, the learned pleader for the defendants, and, under section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowed the following issue:
Whether the residential house and shop mentioned in the will (Ex. C) of Bhagabai, were her husband's self-acquired or ancestral property?
I allowed the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence on this point. This they did on 3-5-15. The parties admitted that there had been a partition of the family about Samvat 1948. The defendants admitted that the main part of the house and the shop were ancestral, but that the testatrix's husband made additions to them. This last part being disputed by the plaintiffs, I examined their witnesses Nos. 6, 7 and 8 (Exs. 77, 78 and 79) Sitaram Bapuji (plaintiffs' witness No. 6, Ex. 77) says: "He made the additions with his own money from the shop, from his self-acquired income, and also from the money which he got on the partition." Ramzan Beg (plaintiff's witness No. 7 Ex. 78) says: "The well and the Karchana were built by Pyarchand with his own money and the share he got on partition. Gopal (plaintiff's witness No. 8, Ex. 79) says: Pyarchand built a new well and a Karchana, The well is worth Rs. 40 or 50, the Karchana is about the same." All these witnesses speak to the late husband of Bhagabai having spent his own money on the additions. The last witness cannot but be biassed against the lady. He says: "She obtained a decree against me for Rs. 200, about 11 year ago. I have not paid it yet." The other two witnesses (Nos. 6 and 7). both say that Pyarchand spent his own selfacquired income on the additions, along with what he got on the partition. On their own evidence the plaintiffs prove the defendants' statement that the additions were made with Pyarchand's own money. The defendants' witness Mangilal
