Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ367
..... to the plaintiff to file an application only under section 2 of the partition act. if that were the intention, the joint endorsement would have been more specific. in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff would have put himself under a disability by undertaking to file an application under section 2, for, by filing such an application ..... the parties are agreeable to a remand, and the principles of the indian partition act are applied in respect of the property.2. on the basis of this endorsement the matter was remanded again to the trial court for disposal as per the joint endorsement.3. thereafter in i.a. no. 166 of 1949 the plaintiff applied under section 6 of the partition act to ..... joint endorsement merely directed the parties to follow the principles of the indian partition act and not to apply under a particular provision of the said act. according to the learned counsel, there was a difference between saying that the parties agreed to apply the partition act and their saying that they agreed to apply principles of the partition act and what the parties attempted to do now ..... the parties, especially the plaintiff would have contemplated such a situation.6. it seems to be by now well settled that the court has got inherent jurisdiction to direct a sale of the properties among the co-sharers apart from the provisions of the partition act, though there was some divergence of judicial opinion in some earlier cases. in basanta kumar v. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1925Mad1234; (1925)49MLJ411
..... had already directed a sale and in this case the sale was with the consent of all parties. the sale which was directed was a sale under section 2 of the partition act. section 3 begins by saying, ' if, in any case where the court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the ..... suit, a house, should be sold under the partition act ..... ,000 for this property ; but we think that that cannot be insisted upon, because the bid was made when it was not clear as to what the rights of the parties were. 5. the decree will be modified as above stated and the case, will go back to the official referee for disposal in the light of the above observations. the appellant ..... appeal against an order passed under the partition act iv of 1893. the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, one of the co-parceners of a family consisting of three co-parceners, brought a partition suit for his share. when the decree was passed in that suit we find an order passed by the learned trial judge by consent of parties that the property in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)1MLJ207
..... learned counsel appearing for the appellant would on the other hand argue that the provisions of order 21 of civil procedure code do not apply to sales under partition act and section 7 of the partition act recognises distinction between the sales under the partition act and sales in execution of decrees and that the procedure in respect of the latter is to be adopted only as far as practicable ..... upon the decision reported in the official receiver, salem v. c.b. samanthagam ammal 1979 t.l.n.j. 354, wherein our high court has held the partition act itself has contemplated stipulation of certain special terms and conditions when sales are effected under the act and it cannot be contended only the provisions made under order 21, rules 84, 85 and 86 of civil procedure code ..... the preliminary decree and submitted a report to that effect. on the said report, the second defendant filed an application for directing the commissioner to auction the property among the parties. the suit and sought permission to bid at the auction. the said application was allowed. writ the commissioner conducted the sale, the second defendant's bid for rs. 1 ..... the village. publication was also made regarding the sale. only on seeing the same, the sixth respondent participated in the auction. the allegation that the commissioner has demanded rs. 5,000 as caution deposit is improper and is not correct since it has been made only to enable the actual intending purchaser to participate in the auction. there is no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1988Mad325
..... v. ramaswanu, j.1. these two appeals have been filed against a common order in applications nos. 3444 and 3481 of 1983 in c.s. no. 40 of 1981. the said applications were filed under section 3 of the partition act. 1893.2. the subject matter of these proceedings is the property bearing new door no. 74 godown street ..... -case of three parties, if the shares of two people are defined and divided the remaining belongs ..... are three parties who own the property, viz., h.m. textiles 5/9th share, ramakrishnan 1/9th share and defendants 9 to 11 3/9th share. since h. m. textiles was the owner of more than a moiety, they are entitled to file the application for sale under s. 2 of the partition act. since defendants ..... necessary for them to have asked for their. share to be divided as among them and give to them. therefore, there are now three parties in the partition, viz., the 5/9th sharer and the second the 1/9th sharer, and after giving their shares, the remaining is held by the 3/9th sharers. therefore ..... to 1/9th share is entitled to file an application under s. 3 of the partition act.. equally defendants 9 to 11, in our opinion, are entitled to file an application under s. 3 of the partition act because as in the case of two parties if one party is divided the remaining goes to the second, in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1976)2MLJ373
..... the case as per the provisions of the partition act and should have ordered auction of the suit property in between the parties.mr. section gopalaratnam, the learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner in the above revision petition, stated that the request made by the respondent herein before the court below is only under section 2 of the partition act and as such, the order dictated can ..... r ramamurthi v. v. rajeswararao : 1scr904 . the learned counsel submitted that the respondent herein did not invoke the jurisdiction of the court under the partition act and as such the provisions of the partition act will not apply to the facts of this case. the learned counsel also stated that when a court has no suo moto jurisdiction to apply the partition act and when neither party has invoked ..... particular case. mr. m.r. narayanaswami, the learned counsel, further submitted that the partition act of 1893 is only to amend the existing law and that does not mean the power of the court is only within the four corners of the act. to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel cited subbamm v. veerayya (1932) 61 m.l.j. 552 : 34 l.w. 730 : 136 ..... ind.cas. 203 : a.i.r. 1932 mad. 15 ramaswami naicker v. nagammal (1970) 83 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai Madurai
..... each plaintiff / respondent 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/5 share. so the only point to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to get preemptive right without filing an application under sections 2 and 3 of partition act, 1893. it is appropriate to incorporate sections 2 and 3 of partition act, which reads as follows:- section 2. power to court to order sale instead of division in ..... . 8. on the basis of the rival contentions, the following points raised before me, for consideration:- 1. whether the appellant /second defendant is entitled to filed an application under sections 2 and 3 of partition act, 1893, to claim preemptive right in the second item of the suit property? 2. whether the findings given by the trial court in additional issue is sustainable? 3. to ..... filing of written statement is not sufficient and only during the final decree proceedings, if the property is incapable of division, she ought to have filed an application under sections 2 and 3 of partition act, 1893. hence, the findings of the trial court does not warrant any interference and hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal suit. 7. i have heard the learned ..... . procedure when sharer undertakes to buy. (1) if, in any case in which the court is requested under the last foregoing section to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad119; (1988)IMLJ297
..... share of the appellant to respondents 3 to 7 and the court has no jurisdiction to order such a sale excepting under the provisions of the partition act (act iv of 1893). learned counsel proceeded to contend that there was no application by any party under section 2 of the partition act, for a sale of the property and in the absence of such an application, the provisions of the ..... partition act could not be invoked learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of gokulakrishnan j. in muthusami gounder v. kaithamalai gounder (1976) mlw 652 ..... the appellant and equalise the respective shares by direction to pay owelty.18. in support of his contention that an application under section 2 of the partition act is a sine qua non for directing a sale of the share of one of the parties to the other sharers, learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the supreme court in badri narain prasad .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ297
..... share of the appellant to respondents 3 to 7 and the court has no jurisdiction to order such a sale excepting under the provisions of the partition act (act iv of 1893). learned counsel proceeded to contend that there was no application by any party under section 2 of the partition act for a sale of the property and in the absence of such an application, the provisions of the ..... partition act could not be invoked. learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of gokulakrishnan, j. in muthuswami gounder v. a.p. kaithamalai gounder 89 ..... the appellant and equalize the respective shares by direction to pay owelty.18. in support of his contention that an application under section 2 of the partition act is a sine qua non for directing a sale of the share of one of the parties to the other sharers, learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the supreme court in badri narain prasad .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad88
..... second appeal.(2) the provisions contained in section 100 c.p.c. are not applicable to applications under section 4 of the partition act since the cause of action for section 4 application is entirely different and is based upon the provisions of the act.(3) application under section 4 of the act will have to be decided before concluding the shares between the parties.' in that case, neither in the ..... finding that the members of the family had abandoned the idea of residing in the house. learned counsel invited my attention to a number of decisions of various courts under section 4 of the partition act and submitted that the principles laid down in these decisions have been ignored by the courts below. per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that there ..... living elsewhere for a long time, did not arise for consideration in that case.10. learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the following observations of walsh j. in subramania sastri v. sheik ghannu : air1935mad628 . 'but it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that we must first look to the words of the statute itself and if these words are ..... integrity of joint property. the object of the section was to prevent fragmentation or disintegration of a family dwelling house at the instance of a transferee of a share therein. a sea change has taken place in the life style of the people in the country and what prevailed in 1893 when the act was passed is a matter of ancient history. joint .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1949Mad772
..... trial on 26th september 1947 both parties conceded that the property was incapable of being divided by metes and. bounds and that it should be sold under the provisions of the partition act. on the same day, the defendant who wanted to purchase the property under section 8 of the partition act was given time for filing an ..... 5 and 6 of the plaint, it is distinctly averred that as a division by metes and bounds was not possible, the property might be directed to be sold under the partition act and the proceeds divided. in para. 9 of the plaint the plaintiff prayed for a sale of the house under the partition act between the parties. ..... share of the plaintiff. it may also be that having regard to the fact that the defendant is a minor, the court may not, under section 5 of the partition act, sanction the purchase. it is no doubt true that an advantage has accrued to the defendant by reason of the admissions made in the ..... arisen, alleging that the property was capable of a convenient division by metes and bounds, that the statements to the contrary made in paras. 5 and 6 of the plaint and before the court on 26th september 1947 were all due to a mistake and that the proceeding should be amended ..... . no. 706 of 1946, declining to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint by withdrawing certain allegations made in para. 5. the suit was laid by plaintiff, a minor, acting through a next friend, for partitiou and possession of a half share in a certain house property, the defendant being entitled to .....Tag this Judgment!