Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-.5". The defendants contented that the plaintiff is not
--..V"e.n.'titied to 1/3"' share in the suit scheduie properties and B/\.»----=--~ _.14_.
that the gift deed as weil as the sale deeds;"e'><'e;u._te'd_.vin_ favour of various defendants are valid in law..,\ V
6. The triai Court onV.eeQnsider_in'g the contentions raised and as many as 14 issues partly that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7"' suit schedule properties thiatlfthge' piva'Vi'nt*i--ff:Ahas failed to prove that his 'defendant was given in that the adoption is obtained _by_frau_d ~-a'nd_'"-nslisrfepresentation; that there was no partition ..,and' lconwsequentiy the question of an °-indepehdentigpossession over the respective shares does /_no.t'Via;-.Ese_p%.vfofatfonsideration; that the gift made by the def~e_nda.ii~t_iu\F'.oA.f1 in favour of his daughters, defendants 5 to are binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his share, A -.,b'u~t tiinding to the extent of the share of defendant No.1; _that the sales in favour of defendant No.10, in favour of the father of defendants 11 to 15 and in favour of wm»