The court reinforced that parties must have a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in cases of partition claims involving ancestral property.

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

This appeal by the appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 17^th April, 2009 passed in OS No.110 of 2008 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Sankeshwar (for short “the trial Court”), which is confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri at Hukkeri (for short “the appellate Court”) in RA No.20 of 2009, 23^rd August 2010. Both the courts have dismissed the suit of plaintiff filed for partition and separate possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties here in or referred to as per the rank and status before the trial court.

3. Facts in nutshell leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein filed suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/6^th share in property bearing No.200/1 situate at Kurni village, totally measuring 10 acre 13 guntas, out of which, southern half side i.e. 5 acre 6 guntas 8 anas, is the suit property.

4. Despite service of notice, defendants remained absent and placed ex-parte. To prove the case of the plaintiff, one witness was examined as PW1, and one document was marked as Exhibit P1. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to explain as to the extent of property sold by the defendants 5 and 6 to defendant No.7. Therefore, due to insufficient pleading of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff preferred regular appeal before the appellate court. The same came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by courts below, that plaintiff is before this court in this second appeal.

5. On 22^nd June 2023, the learned Counsel for the appellant filed IA.II of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce record of rights of property bearing RS No.200/1 measuring 10 acre 13 guntas of Kurni village, Hukkeri Taluk, contending that she is an illiterate lady and recently when the case was posted for Final Hearing at that time, the Advocate who is appearing on her behalf before the court, called her and asked details of all the parties and also regarding a flow of title of property and to bring the documents to show that the properties or ancestral properties. Thereafter, she approached the Office of Tahsildar, Hukkeri and requested applied for certified copies of record of rights for the years 1970 to 1980. At that time, the names of her father and grandfather was forthcoming in the documents. Immediately, she handed over the same to her Advocate to file before the Court. She has further stated that she is the only sister and respondents 1 to 5 are her brothers and respondent No.6 is the wife of her paternal uncle-Basayya. During the lifetime of her father, all the brothers have divided the property between themselves, even without intimation to her father as also excluding her. She has produced the extracts in which her brothers had mutated their names behind her back, and when she asked for her share, they had postponed the same on one or the other reasons. She has stated that she has not filed these documents before the trial Court, which can easily establish that the suit properties are ancestral properties. It is further stated that defendants 1 to 5, taking undue advantage of the age of her father-Gurusiddhaiah, got entered their names in the revenue records behind her back. The respondent No.4 sold his share of 34½ guntas out of land RS No.200/1 to Mallayya S Hiremath on 26^th May, 1999. The said Mallaiya sold the same to the husband of respondent No.6-Basayya on 26^th February, 200