PARVATHAMMA Vs. VENKATSIVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment delivered by the trial court, we find that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings arrived at by the trial court, especially in view of the fact that the partition of the property, among the family members, had taken place on 20 June, 1990, whereas the suit for partition had been filed by the Respondent -daughters in the year 1993.