Chikkanagoudar, learned counsel contended that this court is having jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure to mould the relief and in this regard, he pressed into service Order VII Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of JAYATHIRTH RAMACHARYA GUDI v. BINDUMADHAVACHARYA SRINIVASACHARYA GUDI reported in ILR 1996 KAR 941 and argued that this Court is empowered to read the averments made in the plaint as a whole and he further submitted that by considering the facts in totality, this Court can hold that the partition deed dated 23rd March, 1974-Exhibit D1, be set aside. Emphasising on this aspect, he further contended that parties to the suit knowing fully about the original partition made during 1974, was questioned in the suit and therefore, even if there is no specific contention raised with regard to the same, but by looking into the prayer made by the plaintiff seeking oneseventh share in the suit schedule property, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. He further contended that the father of the plaintiff-Brahmappa died in the year 1976, however, the application made for change of mutation in the year 1979 as per Exhibit P8, would indicate that defendants have impersonated
