MALLANNA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree for partition granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for appellant Sri. Padmanabha V Mahale, Senior Counsel.

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent had pleaded that there was a partition in the year 1980 and as the suit properties were purchased by the defendant Mallanna, the father of appellant herein in the year 1950, he contends that the Courts below over looked the material placed on record and granted a share in the suit properties. He submits that when the first respondent took up a defence that there was a partition earlier, she cannot now put forth the plea that they are the joint family properties. On these grounds, he has sought for admission of this appeal on the aforesaid contentions.