JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff respondent claimed a 10 annas share in the property in suit. The defendants appellants contended that the share of the plaintiff was 6 annas only. The trial Court held that on merits the evidence justified the finding that actually the share of the plaintiff was only 6 annas and not 10 annas. In the lower appellate Court, this finding of the trial Court was not challenged by the plaintiff in support of the decree which had been passed by the trial Court in his favour holding that his share was 10 annas. On facts, therefore, there is a concurrent finding by the two lower Courts that the plaintiffs share is actually six annas only.

Both the lower Courts, however, held that the defendants were not entitled to challenge the claim of the plaintiff for the 10 annas share on account of a decision by the Special Judge in proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. It appears that the plaintiff had applied under S. 4, Encumbered Estates Act on 27-10-1936, and in his written statement under S. 8 he showed a 10 annas share in this property. The whole 10 annas share was published in the notification under S. 11 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document