The court found that there was a separation between the family on April 23, 1971 and the division of the same date was admissible as evidence. Ownership of the suit was available at the time of partition. The Deed Sale, on which the original applicant was based, was merely a nominal deed of sale and not a deed of sale and sale from Exh. P1 was considered a guarantee for loans and never intended to sell the property of the suit. It was also established the lawsuit that the property of the complaint was purchased by Krishnappa late for a sum of 400/- in 1948 and it is said after it was sold to Rs 200/- after 16 years in 1964, which is very unlikely. Regarding the sale of May 18, 1973 (EXh. P2) by Siddalingappa in favour of the applicant, there was a categorical conclusion from the two courts below that the document cited was false. The First Court of Appeal dismissed the original applicant`s appeal and upheld the court`s judgment and decree, while it dismissed the appeal, noting that Exh. D4 cannot be characterized as an act of partition and can only be characterized as a list of separate properties and does not create or expire any rights to the property and therefore no mandatory documents, and exh. D4 is therefore authorized to provide proof. By the judgment of the case – Thualsidhara – Another v. – Others, delivered on May 1, 2019, Judge L. Nageswara Rao`s departmental bank and Supreme Court Judge M.R.
Shah made it clear that, according to the line of his judgment in the case – Subraya M.N. v. Vittala M.N. – Others – (2016) 8 CSC 705, even without registration, a written document of family/family agreement comparison can be used as evidence confirming the agreement and conduct of the parties. In this case, the applicant also categorically acknowledged that the oral division took place on April 23, 1971, and he also acknowledged that 3 to 4 panchayat persons were present. However, he felt that this had not been reduced in writing. Therefore, it can even be accepted that the applicant`s case, which was the subject of an oral division on April 23, 1971, with which he is also the signatory and that all other family members are signatories, is a list of shared real estate. Everyone was right/shared after the oral score. In the name of the original, he became the owner of the property in court which acquired it in a registered sales file and, therefore, the accused have absolutely no right to encroach on his peaceful possessions and on the joy of ownership of the action plan.
Subsequently, the division between the sons of the late Nanjappa was registered on April 23, 1971, and the property of the complaint fell into the part of the deceased A.N.Krishnappa. It was also the case for the accused that they enjoy possession of the property of the prosecution. In the applicant`s second complaint, the HC granted the complaint, disturbing the findings of the facts that had been recorded by the two courts below, and therefore found that the divisional deed-D-A required registration and therefore undue evidence. The HC also found that the following two jurisdictions were not justified for the Exh possession document. P1 was only a nominal deed of sale and the same was not implemented. The respondents in this regard – the original applicants applied to the Court of Munsiff and JMFC in Gubbi in 1984 for the judgment and the decree on their behalf, praying that he would be declared the owner of the property of the complaint plan and also for a permanent injunction that prevents the complainant here (the original accused) from disrupting his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ownership of the action.