Thus, these facts companyclusively establish that there was a prior partition among five brothers including the father of the appellant and thereafter necessarily the plaint schedule property had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs father and mutation was effected as per joint application, Ext.24 entered in the year 1929 30.
No attempt was made from 1929 30 till date of the suit, challenging the mutation effected in the name of the father of the appellant.
Ever since they were jointly in possession and enjoyment of the property which Chenne Gowda, father of the appellant had got fraudulently mutated in the revenue records in the year 1929 30.
The admitted position is that appellants father Chenne Gowda apart from himself being Chenne Gowda had four brothers, namely, Linge Gowda, Hala Gowda, Bale Gowda and Channiah.
The finding recorded by the appellate Court is that on a joint application signed by all the brothers under Ext.24, the property was mutated in the name of the father of the appellant.
It is also number in dispute that in the year 1929 30, there was a transfer mutation of the lands in the name of the father of the appellant.
First defendant has set up his defence in the written statement companytending that this property originally belonged to Huchamma, the grand mother of the defendant No.1, father of the appellant and others.
On appeal, the appellate companyrt reversed the decree and decreed the suit.
This appeal by special leaves arises against the judgment and decree of the Karnataka High Court made on February 14,1995 in RSA No.350/90.
The appellant had filed the suit for a declaration of his title and injunction against all the defendant to restrain them from interfering with his possession.
The first defendant as DW 1 admitted that there was a partition between the appellant and his brothers, defendant 7 and 8 and that they were in possession and enjoyment and their respective properties were partitioned by meets and bounds.
Consequently, there was partition by meets and bounds among five brothers and it is admitted that the same was accepted by the High Court as an admission.
In the second appeal, the High Court interfered with the appellate Courts decree and companyfirmed the decree of the trial Court .
From 1968 onwards, defendant started interfering with his possession disclaiming his title.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
and the companyrts below have rejected the plea of the defendants of the succession from the grand mother Huchamma.
The appellants defendants 8 and 7 are sons of Chenne Gowda.
Subsequently, in 1936, there was a further partition between the appellant and his brother, defendant 7 and 8 and the suit land had fallen to his share and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it.
The appellate Court as well as the High Court accepted the finding that there was a prior partition between the first defendant and his brother.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
4 to 6.
On her demise, this property devolved upon them.
In view of the admission by the first defendant as DW 12, that there was further partition between the appellant and his brother, necessarily the self same lands stood in the name of the appellant.
Bole Gowda is the third defendant and Chenne Gowda is the second defendant.
Ultimately, suit came to be filed for a declaration.
Bole Gowdas sons are defendant Nos.
In other words, the suit number stands dismissed.
Leave granted.
The first defendant is the son of Linge Gowda.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
