Point of Law: Rule 73 of Rules reads as duties of Registering Officer.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2017, passed in R.A.No.6/2012, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Late B. Channaiah. The said B. Channaiah had two wives. The first wife by name Jayamma is no more and she had only one daughter i.e., the plaintiff – Smt. Shanthamma. Through the second wife, her name is also Jayamma, defendants No.2 to 6 are born to the said B. Channaiah. It is contended that during the life time of B. Channaiah he was managing the joint family affairs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants, as such, the plaintiff has entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of requesting several times to effect the partition, the defendants did not heed to the requests of the plaintiff and they are trying to eliminate the suit schedule properties in favour of third party. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of partition.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and defendants Nos.2 and 5 filed the written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint. However, admitted the relationship between the parties. It is contended that after the death of the said B. Channaiah, the joint family properties have been divided by the first defendant through oral partition and for the convenience of the plaintiff and defendants registered a palu parikath on 04.03.2005. Item No.1 is the self acquired property of the first defendant and item No.6 is also the self acquired property of fifth defendant. It is contended that as per the said palu parikath, the plaintiff and defendants have given consent to the said document and put their signatures and agreed to receive the amount which was due from one Nanjundaiah to divide equally and recovered the said amount through Court of Law to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The plaintiff also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards her share and also the plaintiff has given consent to the said partition. Hence, the question of filing the suit for partition does not arise.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues and the plaintiff in order to prove her case examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 15. On the other hand, defendant Nos.5 and 4 have been examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and they have examined one witness as D.W.3 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 9. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record granted share in the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants have filed an appeal in R.A.No.6/2012 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff before this Court.

7. This Court while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 18.06.2018, as follows :

1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that there was a prior partition and Ex.D1, the registered partition deed was acted upon and without seeking cancellation of the said partition deed, the instant suit was not maintainable?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in concluding that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 and 5?

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his arguments he vehemently conte