In Brief
The appellant appealed a partition suit decision denying him any share in disputed lands (schedule lands). He had claimed possession of wet lands in Ballyamandoor village, but his evidence proved contradictory: while his written statement mentioned three 'batties' of such lands, he later testified he did not know their survey numbers. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of both lower courts that he had already been allotted lands elsewhere (Harihara village) in a prior family partition and had failed to prove possession of the Ballyamandoor lands. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.