Evidence adduced without specific pleadings has no value in the eyes of the law; therefore, appellate courts are fully justified in rejecting applications for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC when the underlying facts were known but not pleaded during the trial.

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11-06-2010 IN R.A.NO.91/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND IT COURT, HIREKERUR CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND THE DECREE DATED 14-09-2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.165/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, HIREKERUR AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Appellant/defendant No. 2 has filed this appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for setting aside judgment and decree dated 11.06.2010 passed in R.A.No.91/2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and Itinerate Court, Hirekerur (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’) confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.165/1998 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short, ‘Trial Court’) and to dismiss the suit of plaintiff.

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Plaintiff-Mahabaleshwarappa has filed the suit in O.S.No.165/1998 praying for the relief of partition and his separate possession in suit schedule property bearing VPC No.237-A situated at Vaddar Oni within the jurisdiction of Hirekerur Village Gramathana; for court costs and for such other reliefs.

4. Plaintiff has furnished the genealogical tree as follows:

«ÃgÀ¥ Àà - P Àt« (¥ÉÆÃw)

- ª ÀįÉèñ Àª Àé (¥ ÉÆÃw)

---------------------------------------

ª ÀĺÀ§¼Éñ Àég À¥ Àà (ªÁ¢) ²ªÁ£ÀAz À¥Àà (1£ Éà ¥ ÀæwªÁ¢)

5. One Veerappa Kanavi, the original propositus has a wife called Malleshawwa, who has two sons i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1-Shivanandappa. Another son of Veerappa by name Chandrasekhar was partitioned from the family of plaintiff long back. It is the contention of plaintiff that suit schedule property came to plaintiff and defendant No.1 through their father. Their father has filed O.S.No.57/1970 against his wife and two sons i.e. present plaintiff and defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession and it was decreed. Plaintiff was entitled for 1/4th share in suit schedule property as per the judgment and decree of O.S.No.57/1970. After death of parents of plaintiff and defendant No.1, their half share i.e., the share of father and mother is to be equally divided between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and thus both of them are entitled for half share. In the meanwhile, after death of their parents, defendant No.1 has filed O.S.No.109/1990 praying for partition and separate possession. Said suit was ended in compromise and accordingly both are enjoying their respective shares. However, no decision is given in respect of present suit schedule property in the said suit. Thus, both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having common and joint interest in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, during 1985 name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 were jointly entered in mutation register. But without giving notice to plaintiff, name of plaintiff was deleted as per order dated 17.07.1997 by Panchayath Authorities. Presently, plaintiff learnt that defendant No.1 has sold entire suit schedule property to defendant No.2 and it is illegal and to be set aside and does not bind the share of plaintiff. Earlier plaintiff has given notice to defendant No.2 through his advocate that he has got right over suit