On appeal being carried, the High Court reversed the decree of the lower appellate companyrt and granted the relief of partition and it is this decree of the High Court which is the subject matter of appeal in the present case.
The learned trial Judge rejecting the claim of the defendants exclusive right and title, granted a decree for partition.
1 and 3, who are the widow of the son of the original tenant Imamsab and the husband of one of the daughters of Imamsab, claimed their exclusive title in respect of the two items of landed properties, namely, land bearing Survey Nos.
On appeal, the lower appellate companyrt affirmed the decree so far as it relates to the house property, but reversed the decree so far as it relates to landed properties.
In reversing the decree of the trial Judge in relation to the landed properties, the lower appellate companyrt came to the companyclusion that the order of the Land Tribunal in favour of those defendants under Section 48A of the Land Reforms Act companyfers exclusive title on them and therefore the plaintiff cannot be granted a right of partition in the same.
The lower appellate companyrt also came to a finding that the plaintiff cannot be held to be a member of the family.
A suit for partition having been filed in respect of four items of properties, i.e., two house properties and two other landed properties, the learned trial Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of 15/32 share.
Defendants Nos.
7/2 and 152/1, on the basis of an order passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 48A of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961.
Leave granted.
B. Pattanaik, J. Delay companydoned in filing application for substitution.
Substitution allowed.
