ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: EARLIER PARTITION NOT PROVED, EXCLUSION OF COPARCENARE NOT PROVED Once the properties were acquired by the father and grand father of the parties to the suit, both of them are entitled to equal shares therein. If there existed any arrangement that has the effect of excluding the appellant from succession, the respondent was under obligation to plead and prove it. As observed earlier, he did not choose to enter the witness box at all. No other document that has the effect of stopping the succession was placed before the Court. Some doubt exists as to the property that is acquired through Ex.A.5 by P.W.2. However, that witness categorically stated that the item was acquired at a time when himself and his brother i.e., father of plaintiff and defendant were joint and that he does not have any share in it. The inescapable conclusion is that items 1 to 3 are available for partition. the suit schedule properties were acquired by the ancestors of the appellant and the respondent and that there is noting on record to suggest that the succession was in any way scuttled. Therefore, the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand are entitled for equal shares in the suit schedule properties. An objection as to bar of a subsequent suit that can be raised under Rule 2 of Order 2 C.P.C., would heavily depend upon the facts that are pleaded. The defendant who raises such an objection must plead necessary facts and adduce evidence. It is only then that the Court would be in a position to examine it and record its finding. In the instant case, the respondent did not raise the plea at all, much less did he supplement the details. No evidence was adduced on this aspect.