In Brief
A family property partition dispute spanning three generations centred on whether certain lands were distributed in an oral 1965 partition or a documented 1984 partition. The plaintiffs claimed the lands belonged to the joint family; defendant No.7 (now deceased) contended they fell to his share in 1984 and had been validly sold. The High Court relied on the unpleaded 1965 partition to reject defendant No.7's claims. The Supreme Court held that evidence regarding the 1965 partition could not be considered as the plaintiffs' amendment to plead it was rejected. The 1984 partition deed, properly documented and never challenged, clearly allocated the disputed lands (Survey Nos. 106/2 and 44/4) to defendant No.7's share. The Court upheld the 1984 sale and allowed the appeals.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.