Reddy (father of defendant Nos.4 and 5) had
pursuant to oral partition taken place in the year 1971,
which was reduced into memorandum ... with law. The 13th defendant further stated that
there was an oral partition in the year 1971 which was
acted upon and the same
averred that Nagappa died in 1935 and thereafter, there was a oral partition in the year 1937 between him and Mallappa in respect ... suit filed by the plaintiffs is in time and that oral partition as alleged by the first defendant has not been proved and the first
partition' as meaning only a partition made
by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the
Registration Act, 1908 , or a partition ... oral partition or partition by unregistered document which is
not followed by partition by metes and bounds on the one
hand and oral partition
appellants during the
course of arguments has submitted that there was oral
partition between defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1965
in the presence ... they divided the
properties orally in the year 1965. So they have set up
an oral partition of the year 1965. It is also their
this oral partition, they
began living separately and enjoyed their respective
shares of the properties acquired through this partition.
In 1969, this oral partition ... sought a partition based on general
allegations in her plaint, despite knowing about the prior
partition. Her failure to plead about the partition or
acknowledge
Shanbhag,
defendant No.1 and the plaintiff by way of mutual oral partition
allotted the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant ... said oral partition was made in the presence of the brother
of this defendant-Harishchandra Madhava Pai, since Anant
Shanbhag,
defendant No.1 and the plaintiff by way of mutual oral partition
allotted the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant ... said oral partition was made in the presence of the brother
of this defendant-Harishchandra Madhava Pai, since Anant
this oral partition, they
began living separately and enjoyed their respective
shares of the properties acquired through this partition.
In 1969, this oral partition ... sought a partition based on general
allegations in her plaint, despite knowing about the prior
partition. Her failure to plead about the partition or
acknowledge
Shanbhag,
defendant No.1 and the plaintiff by way of mutual oral partition
allotted the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant ... said oral partition was made in the presence of the brother
of this defendant-Harishchandra Madhava Pai, since Anant
prior partition. The mutation entry is produced
affecting partition. Therefore, the plaintiff had no occasion
to deny those facts. Even presuming that partition had
taken ... plea of oral
partition cannot be accepted as the statutory
recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of
partition duly registered under the provisions
