N. SHIVA KUMAR Vs. UMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The appellant was defendant no. 1 in a suit for partition. The same having been decreed, as prayed for by the plaintiffs, the same is under challenge. The suit properties were defined under Schedule 'A' and 'B'.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that insofar as the findings arrived at in respect of Schedule 'B' properties are concerned, he has no dispute. However, insofar as Schedule 'A' properties are concerned, there is a larger extent of the property which has been overlooked. And the further circumstance that a portion of Schedule 'A' properties was said to be the self -acquired property of Lakshmamma and that she had acquired it under a registered partition deed, was decided on that basis, without the registered partition deed being produced before the court. He would further submit that even during the pendency of the suit, out of which, this appeal arises, a suit had been field by the present appellant - defendant no. 1 in O.S.No. 6971/2007 and an endeavour was made to have the said suit clubbed along with the present suit in O.S.No. 8213/2000. However, the court had rejected the prayer on the footing that the suit filed by the appellant was seven years after the other suit filed by the plaintiffs and therefore, found it inadvisable to club the matters together and consequently, the present impugned judgment having been rendered, the issue remains inconclusive. In that, the same has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs, without the same being established by producing the relevant document in question.