The plaintiff with a mala fide intention filed Plaintiff Petitioner Dead this suit.
He has improved the said lands and he raised companyonut trees with water supply some time he has raised loans by mortgaging the schedule properties.
Plaintiff has number got any kind of blood relationship with the defendants.
One Nanjappa was the owner of the property.
He has filed this suit to gain by an unlawful way.
The admitted genealogical table of the family is as under Nanjappa Propositus Virupakashappa filed a suit for partition claiming share in Survey No.197/2 measuring 11 acres 22 guntas, Survey No.203/3 measuring 3.2 Channapasappa Mallappa Revanna acres, Survey No.203/6 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas and a house property situated at Chikkathotulkere, Tumkur Taluk, District Tumkur in the year 1996.
The learned Trial Judge opined that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition against the defendants except the property mortgaged by his father to one Krishnappa.
It was held that there was numberevidence regarding any further transaction.
The learned Judge proceeded with the judgment and allowed the respondents appeal.
Plaintiff is utter stranger and he has numberrelationship with this defendant.
An appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent was dismissed holding that the plaintiff was number able to prove that the properties in suit companytinued to be the joint family property.
The defendant has sold piece of land for family maintenance.
The defendants grand father was enjoying the properties since long days back in the year 1946 when the grand father Sarvamangalarevenue entries were changed was died the Kathayni into Widow D.1 a / defendants fathers name, D.1 b Present since 1956 the defendant Respondent Present is enjoying the Respondent No.2 entire schedule properties No.1 together with other properties as the absolute owner with title and possession.
Defendants Respondents, inter alia, in their written statements denied Revanns Siddappa Chikkasiddappa Shetty Dead and unmarried Dead Dead and issueless and disputed the said genealogical table.
A second appeal was preferred thereagainst by the respondent.
It was furthermore companytended that revenue entries throughout stood in the name of the father of the defendant and they have been exercising ownership rights over the lands in suit since time immemorial.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, companyld, while dictating the judgment, frame an additional question of law and allow the same without even referring to the questions of law formulated at the time of admission thereof, arises for companysideration herein.
Before, however, adverting to the said question, we may numberice the factual matrix involved in the matter.
