311 of 1948 49 being Execution No.
421 of 1950 51.
3 in the said suit was the grand father of the deceased husband of the appellant No.
There exists a dispute as to whether the properties in suit were divided amongst the four sons of Kabadi Gopalsa.
The suit is pending till the final decree is passed.
A preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court declaring 2/9th share of the plaintiff.
1 in the present case.
However, while setting aside the said interim order of injunction, the learned Court by an order dated 7.07.1967 observed as under On 27.02.1963, the preliminary decree was amended and 1/4th share of Plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 was defined.
2 from transferring the suit schedule properties on the premise that the joint family property had number been divided by metes and bounds.
Whereas according to the respondents, the parties had taken possession of the properties fallen in their respective shares and had been enjoying and even alienating them to the third parties, the appellant strenuously denied and disputed the same.
6180 of 2003.
A final decree proceedings was initiated.
15 of 1953 by an order dated 20.03.1963 restraining the defendant No.
2 in the Court of City Civil Judge at Bangalore which was marked as OS No.
A final decree was said to have been passed on 11.06.1955.
It is, however, companyceded at the Bar that the said decree was rectified declaring the share of the plaintiff to be 1/4th in the joint family property.
The final decree proceeding was, however, dismissed for default on or about 03.09.1974.
6352 of 2004 claiming partition in the properties, being the same as were described as Item Nos.
1 to 3 with respect to all the properties by reason of an order dated 27.02.1963.
It is true that the Civil Court has to simply forward the preliminary decree to the Collector for purposes of partitioning the same and that the Civil Court has numberjurisdiction to companyrect or review the partition that may be made by the Collector.
Respondent No.
By an order dated 18.06.1956, the Trial Court directed the Commissioner to demarcate the lands falling in the share of the plaintiff and allot to him.
1, 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule appended to the plaint in OS No.
Various interlocutory proceedings were initiated and several orders were passed thereupon.
An order of injunction was passed in the said suit being OS No.
No final decree as such has been passed in this suit companycerning the 4th item of the plaint schedule.
However, admittedly, a suit was filed by Ramusa son of Gopalsa against his mother and three brothers in respect of three house properties being Item Nos.
J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Directions were issued therein from time to time.
Appellant has filed a suit which was marked as OS No.
3038 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
The final decree proceedings were ultimately dropped by an order dated 3.09.1974.
It is number in dispute that on or about 11.11.1952, the properties which allegedly fell to the share of Chikka Chinnusa was auction sold in favour of one Moolchand Sharma in execution of a decree passed against him in OS No.
15 of 1953.
During the pendency of the said proceedings, Moolchand Sharma sold his land in Survey Nos.
1 thereafter filed a partition suit against Respondent No.
The said suit was dismissed as number pressed.
9222 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Application of Order VII, Rule 11 d of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code in the facts and circumstances of this case, is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.02.2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
