admitted that he had filed a suit in OS no.3647/2010 i.e., Ex.D.1 against Madappa i.e., defendant no.5 in respect of item no.12 of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.423, sl.no.6 of ‘E’ schedule allotted to defendant no.5 in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-24, PW.1 has admitted that defendant no.2 is in possession of item no.13 of the suit schedule property i.e., Sl.no.9 of ‘B’ schedule of Ex.P.21 allotted to defendant no.2. In his cross-examination at page25, para-18, PW.1 has admitted that the defendant no.4 & his sons are in possession of Sy.no.445 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas i.e., sl.no.10 of D-schedule allotted to defendant no.4 in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-25 para-19, PW.1 has admitted that he is running a nursery in item no.15 of the suit schedule property i.e., in sy.no.450 –sl.no.11 of A- schedule allotted to his father in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-26 para-20, PW.1 has further admitted that defendant nos.2 to 5 are in possession of remaining extent of land in Sy.no.452 i.e., item no.16 of the suit schedule property i.e., sl.no.15 in B-schedule allotted to defendant no.2 in Ex.P.21, C-schedule in Ex.P.21 at sl.no.16 allotted to defendant no.3, D-schedule at sl.no.17 allotted to defendant no.4 and E- schedule at so.no.12 allotted to defendant no.5. In his cross-examination at page-27 para-21, PW.1 has admitted that he is in possession and enjoyment of item no.17 of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.139 and Sl.no.3 in A-schedule of Ex.P.21. In his crossexamination at page-27 para-24, PW.1 has further admitted that he and sons of his elder brother are in possession and enjoyment of item no.23 of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.136 allotted to his father under Ex.P.21 at schedule-A sl.no.1. Thus, the aforesaid version of PW.1 clearly discloses that Ex.P.21/D.19 registered partition deed is acted upon and the respective sharers in the said document are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. If really Ex.P.21/D.19 is a created document, the children of Aduru Munishamappa would not be in possession and
