S. R. Bannurmath, J.

In this appeal, Scrutiny Branch has raised objection regarding deficiency of Court-fee paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal and as the appellant took exception to the objections, the matter was placed before the Court.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.

3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to note the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal.

4. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the O.S.No.5085/2001 against the respondents for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties, on the ground that the properties were self acquired properties of her deceased father Shri Bachappa. It was contended that said Shri Bachappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff along with three sisters and two brothers. It was contended that as there was no partition and inspite of repeated requests and demand, the brothers have denied the share and she is forced to file the suit. It was also alleged that as the brothers have alienated some properties and also intend to dispose remaining properties, she is entitled to permanent injunction. In the suit, she has also impleaded some of the purchasers as co-defendants.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia denying the right of the plaintiff for partition. It was contended that almost all of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the brothers; the plaintiff has not right in the same. It was also contended that since the plaintiff married 30 years back during the life time of father, she is no more member of joint family of her father or the brother so as to claim partition. It was also contended that after the death of the father Bachappa, in the year 1972, the brothers Kalappa and Narayanappa have divided the properties by a partition deed dated 19-08-1973 and since that day, they are enjoying the properties as absolute owners. It was also contended that the plaintiff having relinquished her right by receiving 10 guntas land, it is no more open for her to claim partition in the rest of the properties. It was also contended that having known all these facts, the plaintiff has belatedly, nearly 30 years after the death of her father and after death of one brother Kalappa, has come up with present suit for partition on the ground of the suit is liable to be dismissed. The question regarding insufficiency of Court fee was also raised.

6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the trial Court has raised the following issues: delay and latches alone-

(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Bachappa and that she has a share in the said properties?

(2) Whether defendants prove that the properties as described in the plaint schedule are the joint family properties as pleaded?

(3) Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled to share in all the suit properties?

(4) Whether defendants 2, 4, 6 and 8 prove that plaintiff and her other sisters have relinquished and gave up their rights in respect of joint family properties of late Bachappa as contended in para 17 of their written statement?

(5) Whether defendants 2, 4, 6 and 8 prove the execution of General Power of Attorney on 12-7-1972 referred to in para 16 of their written statement?

(6) Whether plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession of the suit properties, if not what is the effect?

(7) Whether Court fee paid is proper and sufficient?

(8) Whether plaintiff is entitled for share in all the suit properties?

(9) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction prayed?

(10) To what other relief?

7. Considering the material evidence, the trial Court negatived the contention of the plaintiff as to the properties being joint family properties; and it has also held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also has