partition, and two unstamped memoranda showing the details of the partition were relied upon to corroborate the oral evidence as to prior partition. The bulk ... valid partition at all and the plaintiff has adopted the right course in filing the present suit for partition The partition alleged to have taken
parties acting upon prior partition the plaintiffs were not
entitled to seek partition and separate possession by reopening
earlier partition.
d) The pleadings and evidence ... partition between the parties on the
ground that the partition was an unequal partition and, therefore,
the plaintiffs were entitled to partition.
e) Once partition
parties acting upon prior partition the plaintiffs were not
entitled to seek partition and separate possession by reopening
earlier partition.
d) The pleadings and evidence ... partition between the parties on the
ground that the partition was an unequal partition and, therefore,
the plaintiffs were entitled to partition.
e) Once partition
specifically
contended that, in the year 1985, there was an earlier/prior
partition during the lifetime of Shivayogayya, in which, the
property bearing ... Final Decree
Proceedings.
59. In order to prove the prior partition during
the year 1985 and also that in the said partition
specifically
contended that, in the year 1985, there was an earlier/prior
partition during the lifetime of Shivayogayya, in which, the
property bearing ... Final Decree
Proceedings.
59. In order to prove the prior partition during
the year 1985 and also that in the said partition
specifically
contended that, in the year 1985, there was an earlier/prior
partition during the lifetime of Shivayogayya, in which, the
property bearing ... Final Decree
Proceedings.
59. In order to prove the prior partition during
the year 1985 and also that in the said partition
counsel for the
Appellants-Defendants contended:
i) That there was a prior partition as is
forthcoming from Exs.D8 to D12 i.e.,
declaration ... suit properties are joint
family properties.
iv) That consequent to the prior partition a
family arrangement recorded on 16.05.1991
(Ex.D.46) was entered into
propositus. As there was no
prior partition, and defendants denied partition, plaintiff filed
suit for partition. In said suit, defendants 4, 5 and 6 admitted ... 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
resisted by the defendants contending inter alia that there was a prior partition where under there was allotment of shares to each of the sharers ... share. The Subordinate Judge held that there was no prior partition as set up by the defendants, and that the plaintiff is entitled
doubt the same is resisted on the ground that there was prior partition. This is a case where a suit for partition was instituted after ... partition decrees subsequent thereto and it is clear that there was prior partition between the branches and hence, this question need not be agitated again
