- (1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 17 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, against his brother, the respondent herein, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that, there was a family partition, but the petitioner and respondent have acquired certain items of property, jointly, subsequent to partition, and that the respondent started claiming them as his exclusive properties. The respondent filed counter-affidavit, denying the allegation of the petitioner. The Trial Court framed the issues, and the trial of the suit is about to commence.
(2.) THE petitioner filed I. A. No. 254 of 2008, under Order 18 Rule 1 read with section 151 C. P. C. , with a prayer to direct the respondent to commence his evidence on issue No. 1. He stated that, since it is the respondent, who pleaded that the suit schedule property was already partitioned, the burden is upon him, to prove the same. The petition was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I. A. , through its order dated 30-6-2008. Hence, this C. R. P.
(3.) SRI K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the burden, as regards issue No. 1, squarely rests upon the respondent, and the Trial court ought to have allowed the I. A.;