Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: partition act 1893 section 5 representation of parties under disability Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.314 seconds)

Oct 28 2004 (HC)

Zamir Ahmad (D.) Through L.R. and ors. Vs. Samson Claudius and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-28-2004

Reported in : 2005(2)AWC1842

..... co-sharers and whether the house was in occupation by the members of an undivided family?'5. at the time of hearing both the learned counsel for the parties though argued only on the following two points :(i) whether the application under section 4 of the indian partition act is maintainable in case the disputed property is not a dwelling house and is a ..... 'khandahar' only?(ii) whether in a suit for partition, which has not been filed by the purchaser of ..... contention of the appellant about the maintainability of the application under section 4 of the indian partition act moved by the plaintiff. after relying on a decision of calcutta high court in satish kumar mitra v. kaliappa : air1981cal278 , in which it was held that section 4 of the partition act applies even where the suit for partition was not filed by the transferee (stranger) himself.4. ..... not been filed by the transferee, the application under section 4 of the indian partition act is not maintainable. the two courts below have allowed the application under section 4 of the indian partition act moved by the plaintiff who is one of the co-sharers after relying on the decision of calcutta high court in satish kumar mitra v. kaliappa : air1981cal278 . the learned counsel for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Sk. Raheman Vs. Sk. Sirajuddin

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-18-2004

Reported in : AIR2004Ori181; 98(2004)CLT445

..... was fixed. therefore, in this case, this court finds not a case of breach of law by the opposite party to defeat his claim under section 4 of the partition act. on the other hand, it is seen that on the application under section 4 of the partition act the executing court passed the order in part i.e., by deciding maintainability of the application, then allowing it on ..... 277 on the position of law that extension of time cannot be granted by the court to deposit such money.5. the opposite party on the other hand while supporting to the impugned order contended that while granting relief under section 4 of the partition act and directing him to deposit the money, no specific period was stipulated. be that as it may, he deposited the ..... sc 750, sulleh singh and ors. v. sohan lal and anr., air 1975 supreme court 1957 in support of ..... is in crossed swords situation with the opposite party all through out.4. the revision-petitioner reiterate his contention in support of the claim of non-executability of the order passed under section 4 of the partition act in favour of the opposite party and relied on the cases of naguba appa v. namdev, air 1954 sc 50. duttatraya v. shaikh mahaboob shaikh all and anr., air 1970 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 2004 (HC)

Mohideen Meera Natchi and ors. Vs. P.S.M. Segu Mohamed and Magdoom Mee ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-18-2004

Reported in : 2004(4)CTC130

..... petition in i.a.no.294 of 2001 for passing final decree. at this stage, the petitioners filed i.a.no.113 of 2003 under section 4 of the partition act for passing an order, directing the second respondent, the 13th defendant in the suit, to sell his 1/8 share in the property, ..... to whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase the share of a stranger purchaser, namely the second respondent herein, under section 4 of the partition act.8. the provision is quoted hereunder:'4.partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house (1) where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an ..... under section 4 of the partition act to direct the second respondent herein to sell his 1/8 share in the suit property to the petitioners, which was purchased by him as a stranger purchaser, and the said petition was dismissed. hence, this civil revision petition.2. the first respondent filed the suit for partition of his 5 ..... was passed, allotting 5/8 share to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and 1/8 share to the second respondent herein, who ..... /8 share in the suit property. since 1/8 share of the suit property was purchased by the second respondent herein as a stranger purchaser, he was also impleaded as one of the parties to the suit. ultimately, a preliminary decree .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2004 (HC)

V. Munusamy (Deceased) and ors. Vs. M. Suguna

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-31-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC107

..... against the same. inasmuch as the plaintiff being a third party who purchased the share of the second defendant who is none-else than the brother of the first defendant, the other sharer, namely, first defendant filed a petition under section 4(1) of the partition act, 1893 (in short 'the act'). the said provision reads as under:'section 4, partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house. -_ ..... undertake to buy the share purchased by such a transferee in terms of section 4(1) of the partition act;vi) thereupon the court shall direct the sale of such share by the transferee to such ..... (1) of the partition act involves the following aspects:i) the property shall be a dwelling house; ii) it shall remain as an undivided family property;iii) the member of such undivided family should have sold his share of the dwelling house to a transferee such a transferee should be a third party;v) there shall be an undertaking by the other shareholder to ..... sell his half share in the suit property to the plaintiff, who agreed to purchase the same. accordingly, the share of the 2nd defendant was conveyed by him on 22.5.81 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of rs. 20,000, after purchase, the plaintiff issued lawyer's notice to the first defendant calling upon him to effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2004 (HC)

Lala Om Prakash Son of Late Lala Mithan Lal Vs. Hari Ram Son of Late L ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-29-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Delhi190; 116(2005)DLT71; 2005(79)DRJ453

..... applicable nor on the basis of section 2(j) of the limitation act, it can be held that the suit for partition is barred under the provision of limitation act.7. we have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. the learned single judge from the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-1. ..... was also illegal. it was contended that pursuant to article 113 of the limitation act and as defined under section 2(j) of the limitation act, limitation would be applicable in such kind of suits. on the aforesaid basis, the impugned judgment was assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant.5. on the other hand, mr. s.p. aggarwal, learned senior counsel ..... on the basis of the aforesaid definition, it was contended that when pursuant to the oral agreement the parties have been living in their respective portion, no further partition is necessary. reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on kale and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. : [1976]3scr202 and it was contended that both the ..... the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immoveable properties and thereforee does not fall within the mischief of section 17(2) of the registration act and is, thereforee, not compulsorily registrable;(5) the members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2004 (HC)

Sri Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar and ors. Vs. Smt. Shantabai Ramachand ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-17-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3355; 2004(6)KarLJ275

..... raised in the proceedings under section 48a of the klr act?4. whether civil courts have a jurisdiction to grant decree for partition and separate possession of tenanted agricultural lands as the said question has been kept open in the proceedings arising out of karnataka land reforms act?14. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.15. sri v. tarakaram, the learned ..... tenancy or the tenancy exclusively belonged to the deceased sri namani. secondly, when the appellate authority was called upon to decide the said question, respondents 1 to 7 by their representation prevented the appellate authority from going into the question and they wanted the appellate authority to leave open the said question to be decided by a competent civil court. when ..... and the joint family tenancy and came to a conclusion it declined to hold that there is no relationship of joint family between the parties or that there was no partition in the family, in view of the representation made by the defendants, it left the question to be decided by a competent civil court. it categorically held that the confirmation of ..... whether the property in dispute is a joint family property and whether the applicant was cultivating the land on behalf of the joint family or not. under these circumstances, when the defendants by their representation prevented the appellate authority from going into the said incidental questions and they wanted those questions to be gone into by a competent civil court on an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2004 (HC)

B. Pushpamma and ors. Vs. Joint Collector and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-18-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD260; 2005(1)ALT240

..... to the extent of his share and the order does not suffer from any infirmity. she also would contend that when the third respondent has acted on the partition deed and ordered regularisation under section 5-a of the act, it was improper for the joint collector to come to a conclusion that there is a dispute regarding the title to the property.4. learned ..... issuing notice to the persons who are interested or affected by such amendment may pass orders amending the record of rights. an unregistered partition deed cannot be regularized under section 5-a of the act.5. the first respondent gave the following reasons in setting aside the orders of the mandal revenue officer as well as revenue divisional officer. the land originally belonged to ..... which was dismissed on 21-09-1996, whereafter at the behest of the fourth respondent while exercising power of revision under section 9 of the act, the first respondent set aside the orders of the mandal revenue officer and revenue divisional officer relegating the parties to civil court, aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed. be it noted, when the ..... period 1974-1975 to 1978-1979, the name of anjaiah was shown along with the fourth respondent. mandal revenue officer has failed to notice that the signatures of the parties on the partition deed were obtained subsequently and there is interpolation in the recital portion. there is no description of the lands by giving survey numbers. though anjaiah filed declaration before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 13 2004 (HC)

G.M. Kandasamy and Two ors. Vs. Palaniammal (Deceased) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-13-2004

Reported in : 2004(5)CTC496

..... case.19. learned counsel for the appellants further relied on the decision in subhash chandra v. mohammad sharif, : air1990sc636 , in support of his submission that under the doctrine of estoppel enunciated under section 116 of the indian evidence act, 1872, does not apply even if the tenant denies the title of the landlord, ..... 1980 in favour of muruga gounder and dismissed the suit, filed by velammal in o.s.no. 341/1980 and decreed the suit only for partition in o.s.no. 1290/1979 and in other respects, the same was dismissed. the plaintiffs in o.s.no. 1290/1979, not ..... file of the district munsif court, coimbatore which was transferred to sub-court, coimbatore and renumbered as o.s.no. 341/1980 for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit lands. she claims that the properties belonged to her mother koundammal and so she is entitled to ..... sought for permanent injunction against the 1st defendant. on the basis of the will, the plaintiffs have also come forward with the prayer for partition. with respect to the claim of the 1st defendant as a cultivating tenant of the suit property, the plaintiffs have come forward with the ..... 7, namely, easwaramoorthy, parvathy, kamalaveni, ganapathi gounder, kandaswamy, mylswami and chellammal @ selvarathinam, against one muruga gounder, rajarathinam and jothimani seeking for partition of the suit properties described in item no. 1 and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant-muruga gounder from using or otherwise diverting the water in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

Rambihari and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-22-2004

Reported in : 2004(2)MPHT430

..... .w. 1) and that became the basis for the recovery of the dead body. the subsequent statements of co-accused rambihari and ramswarup are not admissible in evidence under section 27 of the evidence act as the police had already come to know before their interrogation, on the basis of the information given by kallu (p.w. 1), that the dead body of ..... for the aforesaid offences. corroboration has been sought from the recovery of dead body of the deceased on the basis of the information given by the accused persons under section 27 of the evidence act and also the recovery of certain weapons and blood stained clothes on similar information.4. it is no longer in dispute that deceased ghuram met a homicidal end ..... information given by kallu had come to know about the place where the dead body was hidden, the subsequent statements of accused rambihari and ramswarup are not admissible in evidence under section 27 of the evidence act as the dead body of ghuram was recovered in consequence of the information given by kallu (p.w. 1). state of haryana ..... number of cases. the same has been thoroughly examined by the supreme court in narayan chetanram chaudhaty v. state of maharashtra, (2000) 8 scc 457. the law which has been stated in this judgment of the supreme court is as under:--'section 133 of the evidence act provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against an accused person and the conviction is not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2004 (HC)

Krushna Beriha (After Him) Draupadi Beriha and ors. Vs. Smt. Gulabati ...

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Feb-09-2004

Reported in : 97(2004)CLT556

..... , the trial court concluded that the suit does not come under the prohibitory provision of section 4 of the said act. it was further held that the feasibility of partition, if prohibited by the consolidation act, can be considered at the time of final decree in a suit for partition.5. let me first decide whether the civil court had jurisdiction to proceed with the suit due ..... holdings and prevention of fragmentation of land act, 1972 (for short 'the act') reads as follows :section 51 of the act which is of a primary importance in the case reads as follows : '51. bar of jurisdiction of civil ..... to starting of consolidation operation in the area. if the answer would be in the affirmative, then only i shall enter into the other contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.6. section 51 of the orissa consolidation of ..... of the consolidation act was not filed before the trial court. thus, the suit being one for partition ought to have abated.11. in view of the aforesaid finding as regards the maintainability of the suit, there is no necessity to go into the merits or otherwise of other contentions raised by the parties.12. the first appeal is accordingly allowed. the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //