P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Kunhaliumma – Appellant
Versus
Rabiumma – Respondent
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.
This Revision is by defendants 16 to 26, in a suit for partition. The partition was of the estate of one Moyi Haji, the father of the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 6 and one Mammu Haji the husband of defendant No. 16 and the father of defendants 17 to 26. Various items of properties were included in the plaint schedule. Defendants 16 to 26 filed a written statement that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Moyi Haji, but that there was already an oral partition effected among lust heirs and hence the suit for partition was not maintainable.
2. Evidence was commenced in the suit. PW-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff. At that stage, defendants 16 to 26 sought an amendment of their written statement by filing I.A. 6764 of 1996 seeking to introduce a pleath at plaint schedule item No. 22 originally belonged to one Pocker as per a lease deed, Document No. 679 of 1943 and that the said right was purchased by Mammu Haji, their predecessor under document No. 1349 of 1948. In other words, they wanted to set up an exclusive title as lessee in their predecessor in interest against their original stand that all the suit items belonged to Moyi Haji,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.