DIPAK MISRA, J. - (1.) 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. 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 21.06.2010 passed by the learned XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore in O.S. No. 16950 of 2004.
(2.) 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. 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.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. It was contended before the High Court that the trial Court had erred in law in decreeing the suit as the registered deed of partition had not been proved in accordance with law and further the schedule property formed part of the joint family property. 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 no material on record to come to a conclusion that there existed a joint family which possessed sufficient nucleus to purchase the schedule property. A ground was taken that the partition deed had not 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 not been appositely addressed.
(3.) The High Court, as the impugned judgment reveals, noted some of the contentions and posed the question whether the trial Court was justified in directing the defendants to execute a rectification deed to correct the error in stating the site number in the partition deed dated 01.04.1981 marked in evidence as Ex.P-1. It took note of the fact that in the said partition deed site No. 25, which was allotted to the plaintiff, was erroneously described as site No. 35 and hence, relief of the rectification of the error in the deed had been granted by the trial Court. Thereafter the learned single Judge, as is vivid, copiously quoted from the judgment of the trial Court and held that he did not 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. 25. On the aforesaid basis, the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant No. 1.;