Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
holding me; as the plaintiflf-dici~ rnqt;
box and only his pom or evidence, an adverse agaiiist the plninfifiis pladntifi was not Exs.D.2 and 13.27 the burden matey; and 122.27; that having by the derendam that there was of the joint family was under an obligmon to jytug and since no convincing and . the alleged pazfition during the year murta below ougm to have rejectsed the of the defendant abaut the earlier partition ought to have deemed the suit of the plaintifi as S "sought. firanadintlzisbehalfreliancewasplaced on the §§€37W LINUX? U2' fiflfififiiflflm MEWM %?..«BE;E_%£ KM" fiflfiwfififlfim mzwm xwwmm Mr RMKNMWAAM nmxrl Mvumm wt' M5-Anmxrsunmm. nawm mwmmx wt" mamumammn NEW" M "QM!" Vi mmmumammm nawn §.f.§.M_T:uH Ur" flflitfiflfifllfifi Hififl UWUXI" OE' KARN.RTflKfi HIGH CGUKT 0? l(%%?Nfie'"§"fl§(!ii %"§§C'?%§"1§ QQUWV U? 5('flRN&.TfiI{fi §'liGH I decision of the Smrcme Court in the of (31% Annual Va. Nandagcpal auothar [(2001) 4 me 153;]; that as 33 released am is inadmissiblehz unmystnred documk , commizm serious Ex.D'.2; that aaauming of'§rgfi;nents that m.D.2 is not in any way helg earliar paxmion projected' styled M releme deed no cfiect on the right of the was admittedly not at party the and partition of joint family V net be eflected by means at such a