2″” plaintifi’ is the daughter of Yankappa Taiwan The suit was
filed against Parstiram, who was the son of Chandappa through
his first wife, for partition and separate possession of _ respective
1/3111 share in the suit schedule property. It is that
Yankappa Talwar, during his life time, «suit
property to his wife Iviailawwa it
death, the property was it
and Rudrappa. It is further of
Chandappa and Rudrappa,” “entitled to 1/3″‘
share. The defendant, entry made
in his name. –. appeal against the mutation
entry and Asvsistaiit “Commissioner set aside the mutation
entry in the “i”i=?lVIv}_Z_l__(_’_,’_.F.)If Parsuram and directed the parties to
iiappzfoach cotapetent court to workout his rights. Therefore,
V med suit for 1/3″! share in the suit schedule
i. it ‘l’he defendant, Parsuram, contested the suit by filing
__’detai1ediiWIitten statement interalia contending that Chandappa
_ iiiiadiimaxried the 2M plaintiff as second wife. His specific case
was that the suit schedule property had been given to Mallawwa
towards maintenance and during her life time, she gave the suit
\\4./””/MM ”
the lower appellate court is iegal, vakid and based on legal
evidence and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No
substantial question of law arises for consideratign in the
second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is “gt the
admission stage. V. V’ V.
Bkm.