SUMANGALAMMA CHALAPATHI Vs. HIRIYAMMA RAMAPPA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ravi H.K., learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that in a partition suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant No.4 (appellant herein) has taken up the contention that the properties have already been divided in view of a family arrangement or a papupatti recorded and executed by defendant No.4 allocating properties to the respective share holders. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not properly interpreted this particular document holding that the said document is an un-registered document which is not binding on other share holders. Therefore, independently considering the evidence on record and as well Ex.D-11, which is the alleged palupatti, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for her respective share in the suit schedule property and accordingly decreed the suit.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the substantial question of law arises for consideration is: