Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad15; 136Ind.Cas.203; (1931)61MLJ552
..... such other means as may appear equitable for effecting a just partition. (basanta kumar v. moti lal (1907) 11 i.c. 370 (c).)7. then the question arises, if a sale is directed under section 2 and section 3 does not apply, what is the position the sale is nevertheless one governed by the partition act and section 6 relates to such a sale. clause (3) of that ..... , a would appear to have a much better claim than b. but strangely, the section enacts quite the contrary. the ..... smaller share. for instance, if a owns nine-tenths and b one-tenth of an item, the section regards a as being a person under disability although if, of the two persons, one should be favoured ..... .) in ramprasad v. mukandi (1929) 116 i.c. 851 (a.) the learned judges rightly point out that the effect of this section is to favour the smaller shareholder at the expense of the larger. the fact of a person owning a large share is by this section made a disability and he is precluded from offering to buy the interest of the party owning the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 32Ind.Cas.83
..... it is inconvenient to divide the sites after removing the buildings, i decide to take action under the partition act, an requested by the learned vakil for the defendants nos. 1 and 2.' the partition act contains only 10 sections. the provisions of the act empower a court to direct a sale of properties sought to be divided if a division ..... the lower courts in suit no. 259 of 1911, by omitting the clause 'that as regards the house sites in schedule 1, steps be taken under the partition act, iv of 1893, in execution, and by substituting for the clause and the plaintiffs do recover 14/48th share of the value of the house sites above said' the ..... as the defendants nos.1 and 2 received the money from the debtors and the present suits brought in 1911 would, therefore, be barred.10. in mohabharat shaha v. abdul hamid khan 1 c.l.j. 73, mookerjee, j., says at page 76, 'if we are called upon in any concrete case to decide the ..... 000 received by the defendants nos. 1 and 2 in 1904.7. as regards this sum of rs. 1,000 the full bench decision in khadersa hajee bappu v. puthen veettil ayissa ummah 6 ind. cas. 50; (1910) m.w.n. 447 is binding upon me. the following observations occur in that judgment: in ..... to meet the plaintiffs' case after such amendment.(3). that the plaintiffs' claims for shares in the sum of the rs. 1,900 are barred by limitation.5. i think there is nothing in the first two contentions. the amendments were, in my opinion, rightly allowed (order vi, rule 17). the defendants nos. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC69
..... the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. the partition act confers upon the shareholder a right to purchase under section 3 of the partition act. therefore, clearly a right has accrued to the party who applies for leave to buy. that right becomes available, when the other party applying to the court to sell the property under section 2 of the partition act, instead of partitioning it. here, no right has accrued ..... to the appellant. therefore, the said case is also not helpful to the appellant:23. in syed md. ali v. sundaramoorthy, air 1958 mad. 587 a bench of this court ..... with the appellant at all.22. r. ramamurthi v. rajeswara rao, : 1scr904 . this is also a case of vested right. in the said case, the plaintiff wanted to withdraw the suit after the shareholder applies for leave to buy the share of a party under section 3 of the partition act in a suit for partition. it has been observed as follows:as soon ..... has held that proceedings under section 397 and 398 of the companies act are not like suits between private parties which .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1956Ori56; 22(1956)CLT139
..... these two contentions must prevail.6. it was decided in the well-known full bench case of the allahabad high court in -- 'sultan begum v. debi prasad', 30 all 324 (fb) (a), that the object underlying section 4, partition act is to prevent a transferee of a member of a family who is an outsider, from forcing his way into a dwelling house in which ..... which requires strious consideration is whether defendant 1 the appellant, who is willing to purchase the 4 annas interest of kadambini from the plaintiffs is entitled to any relief under section 4, partition act.the courts below have negatived the appellant's claim on the ground that on samuel's death the plaintiffs who became cosharers in the suit house were still members of ..... that have been brought to our notice, and we are of opinion, if i may say so with respect, that that decision correctly brings out the principle underlying the legislative policy in enacting section 4, partition act. what is contemplated is that the dwelling house should have been left undivided and must have belonged to the jurnily.a transfer of the interest of any ..... , the entire interest of samuel in the suit dwelling house to plaintiffs 1 and 2 -- which obviously she was not entitled to do.the parties being christians are governed by the provisions of section 106, indian succession act and kadambini would be entitled only to a half share in the interest of samuel, the other half going to samuel's brother and his .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1916)30MLJ104
..... it is inconvenient to divide the sites after removing the buildings. i decide to take action under the partition act as requested by the learned vakil for the defendants 1 and 2.' the partition act contains only 10 sections. the provisions of the act empower a court to direct a sale of properties sought to be divided if a division of ..... decrees of the lower courts in suit 259 of 1911 by omitting the clause 'that as regards the house sites in schedule 1 steps be taken under the partition act 4 of 1893 in execution and' and by substituting for the clause, 'and the plaintiffs do recover 14/48th share of the value of the house sites abovesaid ..... 1904 as soon as the defendants 1 and 2 received the money from the debtors and the present suits brought in 1911 would therefore be barred in mohabharat shaha v. abdul hamidkhan (1905) cri.l.j. 78 mookerjee, j. says at page 76 'if we are called upon in any concrete case to decide the ..... bs. 1,000 received by the defendants 1 and 2 in 1904.7. as regards this sum of bs. 1,000 the full bench decision in khadersa hajee bappu v. puthu veettil ayissa ummah i.l.r. (1910) mad. 511 : m.l.j. 288 f.b. is binding upon me. the following observations occur in ..... opportunity to meet the plaintiffs' case after such' amendment.(3) that the plaintiffs' claims for shares in the sum of bs. 1,900 are barred by limitation.5. i think there is nothing in the first two contentions. the amendments were, in my opinion, rightly allowed (order 6 rule 17). the defendants 1 and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)ALD690
..... . it is also to be noted in this regard that the partition was affected in 1955 and the parties under the deed kept silent, even till today, without seeking proper declaration. that is yet another militatingfactor against the defendant and supports the view that the deed was genuine and it was acted upon.17. under these circumstances, it has to be clearly held that the ..... of such dispossession or contract except document itself or the secondary evidence subject to certain conditions. under section 92 of evidence act, when a document has been properly executed as required under section 91, no evidence of any oral agreement or statements shall be admitted as between the parties for the purpose of contradicting or varying or subtracting from the terms subject to certain provisions as ..... . it cannot be disputed that exs. al and a2 were duly executed in accordance with law. in this regard, it is also necessary to refer to sections 91 and 92 of the evidence act.24. under section 91 when a term of contract or the grant or any dispossession of the property was reduced to the form ofa document of which is required to ..... , the general power of attorney was cancelled on 5-2-1981. it is the case of the plaintiff that in june, 1983, the defendant requested her to make her own arrangements to cultivate the land, but he created some obstructions at the time of harvesting the crop. therefore, the plaintiff initiated proceedings under section 144. the learned magistrate passed orders on 3-12 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2003AP300; 2003(2)ALD445; 2003(5)ALT380
..... . it was further held:as soon as a shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share of the party asking for a sale under section 3 of the partition act he obtains an advantage in that the court is bound thereafter to order a valuation and after getting the same done to ..... the defendant's claim which, according to crump, j., cannot be done even in a suit where the provisions of the partition act have not been invoked, 17. in b. pattabhiramayya v. b. gopalakrishnayya (supra) a division bench of this court considered the question whether the plaintiff has unlimited right to withdraw the ..... stage, oral application was made by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute fresh suit. the defendant invoked provisions of section 3 of the partition act, 1893 and opposed the withdrawal of the suit. the trial judge, having taken a view that so long as preliminary decree has not been passed ..... brothers have nothing to do with the properties, that his father was only carpenter with meager income and he was suffering from tuberculosis since 1961 which disabled him to earn any money, that by the date of purchase of item no. 1 on 18.2.1958 he was aged 18 years and ..... cannot be admitted as evidence, but it can be relied on for collateral purpose of proving transaction. a reference may be made to kakkarla vijaya v. kakkarla venkataiah (supra) wherein this court considering full bench decision of this court and a division bench judgment of madras high court laid down:in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1962Ori85
..... of the learned munsif, kendrapara and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for partition with a prayer under section 4 of the partition act for buying up the portion of the dwelling house sold by defendant no. 1 to two stranger purchasers defendant nos. 2 and 3. 2. a genealogical table,--showing the relationship of the parties, other than the purchaser defendants 2 and 3, who are outsiders ..... it is clear that these plots form part of one undivided family dwelling house. in my opinion, the position is clear that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief under section 4 of the partition act and it is not necessary that the matter needs further investigation by the courts below, on remand as suggested by the learned counsel for the defendants appellants in course ..... which is only for the personal use and convenience of the occupier; it includes the land on which the structure of the dwelling house stands; that the applicant under section 4 of [the partition act is entitled to purchase from the stranger purchaser not merely the structure of the dwelling house but also the land on which it stands and further every appurtenant arid ..... there is no evidence of any dwelling house on plot no. 2531. i do not, however, accept the defendants-appellants' contention, on this point, either on facts or on law. 5. the well settled position in law is that the term 'house' embraces not merely the structure or building but includes also adjacent buildings, curtilage, garden, court-yard, orchard and that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1926Cal1190,97Ind.Cas.690
..... at a valuation by the court or in the alternative the properly should be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds distributed amongst the co-sharers. the defendant under section 3 of the partition act prayed for a valuation of the plaintiff's share and for leave to buy up the said share at the valuation fixed by the court.2. the trial ..... only applies to a case where more than one co-sharer other than the person who has asked for the sale desire to buy the share of the party who has asked for the sale. the case of debendra nath bhattacharjeev. hari das bhattacharjee 91 ind. cas. 165 : 48 m.l.j. 500 : 21 l.w. 474 : (1925) m. ..... cuming, j.1. in the suit out of which this' appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for partition of a certain tank under the provisions of act iv of 1893. the plaintiff was the 14-annas co-sharer and the defendant was the 2-annas residue co-sharer. the plaintiff asked that he might be allowed to buy up the ..... fallen into an error in his interpretation both of the case of debendra nath bhattacharjee v. hari das bhattacharjie 7 ind. cas. 844, 13 c.l.j. 322 : 15 c.w.n. 552, and also of the sections of the partition act. section 2 provides that 'whenever in any suit for partition...it appears to the court that, by reason of the nature of the property .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad156
..... (1) this revision raise the question as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under section 4 of the partition act (iv of 1893):"whether a sharer can claim to buy out a stranger--transferee of a share in a family dwelling house, in a suit for partition instituted not by the stranger-transferee but by a member of the family.?"(2) the facts of ..... .(11) reference was also made by counsel to banchhanidhi v. balaram, and haradhone halder v. ushacharan,. in the latter case it is observed:"the language again, though not quite happy, is not altogether incapable of a wider meaning. the section refers to a suit for partition and it is well known that a party in a partition suit, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, is at ..... interpretation of a section. in a suit for partition, the parties to the suit are in the position of counter claimants and it can very well be predicated of a defendant in a suit for partition that he is suing for partition. in my opinion, the present case is within the ambit of the section".(10) the decision of henderson j. in ram dulal v. benode behari ..... not been considered necessary. in all the decisions, reference is made to air 1929 cal 269 and sheodhar prasad v. kishun prasad, air 1941 pat 4 refers to air 1929 cal 269, as authority for the position that"in a partition suit each party is in the position of a plaintiff as well as defendant and that therefore even if the transferee be .....Tag this Judgment!