- (1.) The Petitioner filed O.S.No.20 of 2000 in the Court of the learned Senior Civil judge, at Bodhan, against the respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. She pleaded that she is the daughter of the respondent. In his written-statement, the respondent disputed the very relationship, apart from denying the other allegations, made by the petitioner. The trial Court framed an independent issue, touching upon the relationship. The petitioner filed I.A.No.233 of 2005 for reframing of the said issue. The application was resisted by the respondent. Through order dt.5-10-2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision
(2.) Sri Balraj Bodhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue, which was framed by the trial Court, is in such a form, that it would require the petitioner herein to prove the negative. He contends that since the denial, which gave rise to the framing of the issue, came from the respondent, it needs to be reframed, in a manner, that would place the burden upon the respondent.
(3.) The very basis for the petitioner, to file the suit for partition was her alleged kinship viz., she is the daughter of the respondent. The latter denied such relationship. He pleaded that he was no doubt married to Gangamma, the mother of the petitioner, but there were no issues, out of their wedlock. He stated that within one year from the marriage, he divorced her, and the petitioner was born io the said Gangamma after such a divorce. He further pleaded that the said Gangamma got remarried to one person, by name Peeraji, and that the petitioner is the child of that couple. It was in this context, that trial Court framed an issue, which reads as under: "Whether the plaintiff is daughter of the defendant born through Gangamma".;