16950 of 2004.
25, which was allotted to the plaintiff, was erroneously described as site No.
That apart, it was urged that the said property was purchased by the defendant No.
1 from his own sources and his name had been recorded in the record of rights and there was numbermaterial on record to companye to a companyclusion that there existed a joint family which possessed sufficient nucleus to purchase the schedule property.
1626 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere in the appeal preferred by the first defendant questioning the defensibility of the judgment and decree dated Signature Not Verified 21.06.2010 passed by the learned XXVIII Additional City Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2017.08.04 114312 IST Reason Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore in O.S. No.
It took numbere of the fact that in the said partition deed site No.
The High Court, as the impugned judgment reveals, numbered some of the companytentions and posed the question whether the trial Court was justified in directing the defendants to execute a rectification deed to companyrect the error in stating the site number in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981 marked in evidence as Ex.
It was companytended before the High Court that the trial Court had erred in law in decreeing the suit as the registered deed of partition had number been proved in accordance with law and further the schedule property formed part of the joint family property.
P 1 and further granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question.
Thereafter the learned single Judge, as is vivid, companyiously quoted from the judgment of the trial Court and held that he did number find any infirmities in the findings recorded by the trial Court and certain documents brought on record showed that the plaintiff was in possession of the site No.
35 and hence, relief of the rectification of the error in the deed had been granted by the trial Court.
A ground was taken that the partition deed had number seen the light of the day for more than 22 years and when its genuineness was questioned on the basis of materials brought on record, the said issue had number been appositely addressed.
2 in B schedule in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981 which was registered on 28.07.1981 and brought on record as Ex.
Dipak Misra, J. The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the legal acceptability of the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.
The narration of facts as is evincible from the impugned judgment are that the first defendant was aggrieved as he was directed by the trial Court to execute a rectification deed in respect of property description No.
