Partition–Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 12, Rule 6–Partition suit&Dismissed by resorting the provisions of Order 12, Rule 6–There was no pleading in the first suit, filed by the appellants that any HUF was created post 1957–In that suit, it was avered that the land situated at Barota was partitioned between the parties by a mutual partition–In second suit filed by B, he did not pray for declaration of nullity of the decree filed in the first suit–Con-joint reading of pleadings of both suits shows that the entire land of Barota stood reverted to B–Thereafter, son of B filed the third suit against his father praying for declaration that he was the owner as well as in possession of the Barota Land covered by suit first and second–Decrees passed in second and third suit were never challengd by the appellant and respondent no. 6–Now, the respondent no. 6 is estopped from contending that the Barota property is owned by a co-parcenary/HUF which she is member–Decrees passed in second, third and forth suits amount to a recognization and acceptance of the fact of partition between the parties prior to 25th Dec., 2004–Proviso to amended Sec. 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act is attracted to the present case–No case is made out for interference.
