CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the 1st plaintiff. She is aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The facts pleaded in this appeal may be briefly stated and they are as follows, and in the course of this order, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court. ( 2 ) IST plaintiff and 2nd plaintiff her daughter, averred that they are the members of a joint family consisting of the deceased husband of the 1st plaintiff and defendant 1 who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. They claimed that in terms of the Hindu Women's Right to Properties Act of 1933 of the erstwhile Mysore State, the 1st plaintiff was entitled to get share of what her husband would have got at a notional partition just before his death and, therefore, she was entitled to get th share of the suit schedule properties, while the 2nd plaintiff her married daughter who at the time of the death of her father was not married, would be entitled at such a notional partition to 1/8th share. They also alleged that the 1st plaintiff's thumb impression was fraudulently obtained by the defendant, her brother-in-law on the pretext that the same was required with reference to change of Karta of the joint family properties. ( 3 ) THE defendant resisted by filing a statement to the effect that his brother Nanjappa had died some 30 years before the filing of his statement; that all the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties; that after Nanjappa's death, the properties have passed on to a single surviving coparcener is not correct as alleged by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not entitled to between them to 3/7th share in the properties. There was a partition between 1st plaintiff and defendant on 8-5-1979 evidenced by a memorandum of partition which is signed by the 1st plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of panchayatdars. As there has been a partition, the suit for a second partition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. He denied that any thumb impression of the 1st plaintiff was obtained by the alleged representation said to have been made by him. As there has been a partition, the suit for a second partition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. He denied that any thumb impression of the 1st plaintiff was obtained by the alleged representation said to have been made by him. However, after the death of the defendant, his legal representatives who were brought on record filed another written statement in substance reiterating what had been contended by the deceased defendant. ( 4 ) ON such pleading, the trial Court framed the following issues :- (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to 3/7th share in the plaint schedule properties ?or (1)WHETHER the defendant proves that there is already a partition as alleged in the written statement ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties ? (3) Whether the defendant proves that the suit as brought is not maintainable in law ?additional issue :- whether the L. Rs of deceased defendant have got 4/8th share independent of the deceased defendant ? ( 5 ) PLAINTIFF 1 was examined as P. W. 1 and as many as 12 documents were marked in support of the plaintiffs' case. The legal representatives of the deceased defendant examined 2 witnesses and got marked one document in support of their case. The only document got marked by the defendant was Ext. D1 the memorandum of partition. ( 6 ) THE trial Court permitted Ext. D. 1 to be taken in evidence despite the objection of the plaintiffs. It appears to us that there has been a separate order made in regard to its admissibility on the objections raised by the plaintiffs' counsel. We have not had the benefit of reading that order to know the reasons which persuaded the trial Court to permit the document in question in evidence. But a mention is made in the course of the judgement under appeal to such an order having been passed and that it has not been challenged by the plaintiffs either in this Court or somewhere else is not disputed. ( 7 ) WHATEVER that may be, Mr. But a mention is made in the course of the judgement under appeal to such an order having been passed and that it has not been challenged by the plaintiffs either in this Court or somewhere else is not disputed. ( 7 ) WHATEVER that may be, Mr. G. K. Shevgoor has contended that a document which was inadmissible, was admitted It is permissible to be urged as a ground against the correctness of the judgement in the appeal itself and, therefore, he has contended that the partition which has been held to have been proved, by the trial Court, cannot be sustained by this Court because the sole evidence of that partition is the instrument Ext. D1. His contention is that the document not being a registered one which describes itself to be a partition-deed it cannot be an effective instrument evidencing the partition. Therefore, the conclusion that partition was effected should not be accepted. ( 8 ) WE find from the judgement under appeal a thorough discussion the objections raised in regard to admissibility. The Court has taken the view that for collateral purpose of proving the factum of partition having taken place on a given date, as pleaded by defendant 1, the document was admissible though not as evidence of partition. For evidence of partition and separate possession, the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants has been relied upon as well as the admission made by the 1st plaintiff in her cross-examination. Therefore, to contend that the trial Court has founded its conclusion on the basis of the document - Ext. D1 to record that there was partition would not be correct. ( 9 ) D. W. 2 who was one of the panchayatdars named in Ext. D1 gave evidence in the Court and deposed to the fact of the partition having been effected between the 1st plaintiff and the defendant before the panchayatdars. He has said that some lands were allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff. That fact was admitted by the 1st plaintiff that 3 acres of dry land, 1 acre and odd of garden land and one new house were allotted to her share. Even in the Memorandum of Partition, some properties were mentioned and they were said to have been allotted to her share. That fact was admitted by the 1st plaintiff that 3 acres of dry land, 1 acre and odd of garden land and one new house were allotted to her share. Even in the Memorandum of Partition, some properties were mentioned and they were said to have been allotted to her share. The Court below has placed reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Panchapagesa Aiyar v. K. Kalyana Sundaram Aiyar, AIR 1957 Mad 472 , which in turn followed the law declared in Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal, by the Privy Council, AIR 1919 PC 44. The judgement of Madras High Court pointed out that an amendment to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act was brought about in 1929 in order to incorporate the dicta of the Privy Council in the statutory law itself. Section 49 which has been read to us by Mr. G. K. Shevgoor as amended provides 3 categories of documents which are required to be registered under the provisions of Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act made and yet be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes. The third exception mentioned therein normally covers the case of Ext. D1 with which we are concerned. ( 10 ) IT was next contended by Mr. G. K. Shevgoor that the partition was an unequal one. The extent of the properties were nearly 30 acres of dry lands and garden lands and out of that the 1st plaintiff got only 3 acres 30 guntas of dry land and 1 acre 17 guntas of garden land which is about 1/6th of the total extent and, therefore, the Court ought to have reopened the partition and given her 1/4th share. That was never her plea. Her plea was that there was no partition at all. Her plea was that her thumb impression was obtained fraudulently by her brother-in-law for the alleged purpose of changing karta. But in her evidence, she admitted that the panchayatdars at the partition fraudulently (Matter in vernacular hence omitted) obtained the thumb impression. ( 11 ) NOW it is well settled that what is pleaded must be proved and evidence led contrary to the pleadings would not be noticed by the Court, as nothing turns upon such evidence. But in her evidence, she admitted that the panchayatdars at the partition fraudulently (Matter in vernacular hence omitted) obtained the thumb impression. ( 11 ) NOW it is well settled that what is pleaded must be proved and evidence led contrary to the pleadings would not be noticed by the Court, as nothing turns upon such evidence. ( 12 ) THE Court below has taken into account the fact that the plaintiff's son-in-law who was present in the Court when the plaintiff gave evidence was not himself examined in support of whatever took place' on the date mentioned in Ext. D1 at which Panchayati he was present. Therefore, additional evidence which would have supported the plaintiffs' case and which was available to her was not placed before the Court and for that the plaintiff herself is to blame. ( 13 ) THE Court has gone out of the way to point out that the 2nd plaintiff was not a party to the partition and therefore she was entitled to succeed in the suit and decreed the suit in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and dismissed the suit in so far as the 1st plaintiff is concerned. ( 14 ) THE appeal is by only the 1st plaintiff. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusions reached by the trial Court dismissing the 1st plaintiff's suit. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .