SADASIVAN Vs. VASUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant. The appeal arises in a suit for partition. Appellant is the brother of the respondent. The respondent-plaintiff claimed half share in the plaint schedule property.

(2.) THE trial court, after considering the evidence and circumstances involved in the case, decreed the suit. Defendant filed an appeal. THE appellate court also considered the evidence and the other circumstances relevant in the case and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. New the defendant appeals.

(3.) IN this second appeal, counsel for the appellant submits that the building in B schedule of the plaint is not liable to be partitioned since there is a bar under S. 23 of the Act. I feel that I am not bound to examine this question in this second appeal. The integrants of S. 23 of the Act have to be pleaded and a specific contention based on S. 23 has to be raised, then alone, a question of law can be raised on the basis of the bar under S. 23 of the Act.