High Court Karnataka High Court

T Krishnoji Rao S/O Late Thukkoji … vs T Ashwathnarayana Rao on 16 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
T Krishnoji Rao S/O Late Thukkoji … vs T Ashwathnarayana Rao on 16 January, 2009
Author: H N Das


L Whether the pktizttiff is entifled far deekaraiien seught’?

Whe{her the piaintifi” £3 ezltiiied for partition as C-iaimed’?

To what ether reliefs?

4. Before the ‘aria? Com? the plainiiff examined

and got marked Ex.P.1 to EXP. 16. The second w’ae’ A . TC

{}.W.i and got marked Ex.{).1. The after
and on appreciation of the pleaciiglgs, on
record hekl that no censideratiett…§:iia.s ” gfiaigtifi under me
registered partition deed dated 06.} is 111:]! and
void. Consequently properties are
gbint fmnily properities this appeal by the
defendants. ._ M

5. _§fie.e§de and perused the entizse appeal

papers’ . _ = _

6… is 1:1}: in (fie;-xgte that the plaintiff and defendants are the

it is not ‘m dispute that Gangubai died on

2s.o44._ the plaintiff ma defendants as her legal

M 19egaresen£é§tives»–..’£e szeeeeed to the seheduie property. Fuzflzer it is net in

3c41is*pi;hite 56.31.2603 there came to be regstered partition deed

‘th:-={i}Iaiz1tifl’ and defendants. In this paxtitien deed it is stated that

iieasef pla£ntif£’s share in the schedule preperty, he was aiietteii an

E

(II

amount of Rs.5,93,0{}{)f«. Vi.-7ithi11 9 days from the date of partition, {he

plaintifl” filed the suit to declare the regfitered partition dead as illegal

not binding on the piaintifi and for parziiien of the schedule ”

to put him in pazssessi-an of his Iisih share and to render the T

piaintiff challenges the legality of the partitie}iiAA»d’e’*.§d flog; m.w~augds;i%.%

fxrsfiy on the gound that the defendants cocrccfi’ Sign

execute the pazaitian deed; secondly, onVt31aLj’§r3und
mom: of Rs.5,93,D{)G_!- men£io;1sd_in ‘\i’és”n0twAvp§aid to
Ifim. Dining the course of senior
counsel for the piaingiifiitkitly and evidence
insofar as the to execute the
panition 3:§.£I(}’t’V’i$11£fi(‘;>Vi§.3;I;l_t,_ necessary to go into the
question of by the defendants to execuie the
partition deed. ‘« 4’ ‘ V . < V s

I only arises far my consideration is, whether

'she Tria£..(§e1:;fisjus§tifi¢d in holding that the partiiion deed in quesiion is

got amount of Rs.5,93,0{X):'- mentioned

A nemm. $313.,-:2: £3-safe registered zaartitian deed dated 95.11.2993. 1;; nag

.4 H " sis specified that an amemtt of Rs.§,93,fX}Gf- was aliotted

Shae of piaintifi". In this tio<:umm1tEx.I}.} it is net stated that

of Rs.5,93,00flf- was paid eitlwr befaie the Sub»-Regfitzm or

' ":;éf01*e the witnesses. In the normal course if the ameunt mentianed in the

fa
GLW