izzcftrrfirtg the zt.:z’mz’,s1s’i(2r2 mtzzie in the pfrziizr regr1:fr§§:r;;=-.e
pzrérsrtparririrrrz S’
8, I heard arguments on both the -sgicle arirlV_p”eruser§~’theA eritireig
records .
9. Learned counsel filed a
memo relinquishing plaintrifi”s.–r:i¥ght’ i_ schedule
house property. .reeoiiriiVrX’ccoi’dingly the suit
of plaintiffsVp.in.s0fei’r..he ‘schedule property is
hereby disrniSse«’:i.’
l0; Tlxe plaiht-Cpischediile properties are the movables such as
Aibulloekei eoxiixsip, utensils etc. There is no evidence on record in proof
of ti;%ai’l%ihiliVtg:’oi€_pltiiht C schedule properties. Therefore the suit of
the plairi’tiffv–.ir1éefé.r plairit C schedule properties is concerned is
ix * tithe ciismissed.
I l. The only conti*oversy between the parties is in relation to
the plain: A schedule landed properties in survey Nos. 8/4 and 5/4A.
it is not in dispute that plaiht A schedule properties; are the joint