Whatever may be the family arrangement legally plaintiff has no rights to challenge alienations made by her father in whatever capacity as on the date of suit or subsequent upto the date of 09-09-2005. 5.
Estoppel:- When plaintiff by her declaration, act or omission caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, (admittedly when Form 21 statutory notice is being signed by plaintiff during EX D34 and EX D28) neither she nor her representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between herself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. 6.
Presumption under section 133 of Karnataka land revenue act and probability of factual interpretations regarding EX D34
,(Mutation after palupatti)
, EX D19
(Appeal of plaintiff dismissed by AC court regarding challenge as to legality in making entry in RTC regarding sale to D-6)
& EX D28
(Tahsildar orders accepting mutation in the name of purchaser that id D-6)
is not rebutted by plaintiff in order to succeed in her case. 7.
In a suit where government is a party section 80 CPC compliance is mandatory, as such suit should have been dismissed in its entirety at initial stage itself. 8.
Party who alleges fraud and fabrication has to prove it strictly. Plaintiff in lower court alleging fraud and fabrication against statutory presumptions failed in her endeavour to prove her case. 9.
The EX D20 marked as evidence for collateral purpose of Severance of joint status with specific order by the court cannot be overturned or overlooked in final stages. Also EX D20(b) signature marked without any objections cannot be overlooked in final stages. 10.
Court has Improperly framed issues.