Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-02-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Kant3;
..... counsel for the parties have relied upon the decisions in gyan chand and anr. v. sumat rani and ors. : air2002sc2434 ; gautam paul v. debt ram paul and ors. air 2001 sc 61; srilekha ghosh (roy) and anr. v. partha sarathi ghosh - : supp1scr45 and punjab national bank v. r.l. void and ors. : 2004crilj4246 .9. section 4 of the partition act 1893 reads as under:partition suit by transferee of ..... bank was also impleaded. on such impleadment, in the usual course, the appellant bank is said to have filed formal objection to ia 4 filed by the applicant under section 4 of the partition act, 1893. in the objections, it is contended that the application filed in the final decree proceeding is not maintainable. while admitting that the preliminary decree was passed on 30 ..... share in dwelling house.1. where a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, ..... some of the co-sharers to the extent of 13/16 share and as such, bank was also impleaded as one of the party to the execution proceedings. on such impleadmerrt, application was also filed under section 4 of the partition act by the applicants. on consideration of the application, trial court has ordered for valuing the share of the property purchased by the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Apr-13-2006
..... a right of pre-emption under section 44 of the transfer of property act read with section 4 of the partition act has to be considered and decided even in a suit for partition filed by a co-sharer or other co-sharer and stranger purchaser and reliance was placed on judgment of allahabad high court in the case of prayag narain v. vishwanath kaushik and ors. air ..... of judgment inter party and in view of the said supreme court judgment (supra) the suit far pre-emption was not maintainable. lastly, he submitted that the dwelling house in respect of which the pre-emption could be claimed being no more in existence no right could be claimed. it was also submitted that section 4 of the partition act would not apply rather ..... the suit may be decided under section 58 of the evidence act as the claim of plaintiffs is admitted and scheudle a property be partitioned by appointing a survey knowing pleader commissioner at the cost of this defendant.6. section 58 of the evidence act lays down that the facts admitted need not be proved. in effect the prayer was as the parties were in agreement of ..... is condoned. the application is allowed.2. heard mr. daronachaya, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and mr. shashi sekhar dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendant-opposite party.3. the present revision application has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against the order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the learned munsif. khagaria in a final decree case .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Aug-08-2006
Reported in : 2006(4)KLT432
..... kovilagam estate and palace fund (partition) act, 1961, (for short 'the partition act') clause (iii) of section 5 of the hindu succession act, 1956 which exempted the said estate and palace fund from the purview of the hindu succession act, was omitted with effect from the date of execution of the partition deed in respect of the family properties under section 6 of the above said partition act. later on, after the enactment ..... petitioners' contentions, as noted above, are against these findings of the palace administration board. now, i shall consider the rival contentions of the parties.10. the claim of the petitioners is based on section 16 of the hindu marriage act, 1955, which confers certain rights on illegitimate children also in respect of succession to properties. it cannot be disputed now, in view of ..... .a.no. 12/1997 in which, by judgments dated 12-3-1997 produced as exts. p5 and p5(a), this court directed the palace administration board to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioner uninfluenced by the findings recorded by the learned judge in ext. p4 judgment. thereafter, the palace administration board considered the ..... child born of such marriage would have the effect, per se, or on being so declared or annulled, as the case may be, of bastardizing the children born of the parties of such marriage. polygamy, which was permissible and widely prevalent among the hindus in the past and considered to have evil effects on society, came to be put an end .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-18-2006
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1899
..... evidence against him. learned counsel submitted that such a provision which disables an accused from disproving the correctness of the facts contained in a document which would nail him down, is unfair and unreasonable besides being oppressive. this amounts to violation of ..... a manufacturer is not entitled to get a copy of the report of the government analyst of right (when the sample was taken from a retailer) the manufacturer would be disabled from challenging the correctness of the facts stated in the report and such deprivation would visit him with hard consequences as the facts stated in the report would become conclusive ..... processors v. state of h.p. and ors. 1983 cri lj 67 (hp).11. we have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties.12. it would be worthwhile to quote relevant provisions of section 18a, 23(3), 25(2), 25(3) and 25(4), 32a and 34 of the act of 1940 which read as under ..... (3) of the act cannot have a different implication as the legislative intention cannot be different. such an import as for the word 'conclusive' in the interpretation of statutory provisions was now come to stay. if so, what would happen if the manufacturer is disabled from challenging the facts contained in the document which would visit him with drastic consequences when he .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-2006
Reported in : ILR2006KAR4170; 2007(1)KarLJ477
..... the land annexed to the village office, the land was attached to the village office and as such, it was not available for partition. after the abolition, it became ryotwari land only on regrant. the regrant made under section 5 of the act in the name of a person, who was the holder of the village office immediately prior to the appointed day, did not ..... hindu succession act. it is also a settled law that till the village office ..... a provision is made under section 5 for regrant of the land. in this case, there is no dispute that the regrant of the lands has been made under section 5 of the act in favour of defendant no. 1. it is also a settled law that abolition of the village offices does not affect the personal law of the parties. in this case, the parties are governed by ..... , who is none other than the brother of beerappa i.e., uncle of defendant nos. 1 to 3 and father of plaintiff no. 2. as far as relationship between the parties is concerned, there is no dispute inasmuch as fakeerappa had two sons namely, beerappa and yellappa. defendants are the children of beerappa and plaintiff no. 2 is the son of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-26-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Delhi60
..... plaintiffs who are sisters of the defendants, claimed to be members of the joint family, and prayed for partition alleging that they are in joint possession. under the proviso to section 6 of the hindu succession act, 1956 (act 30 of 1956) the plaintiffs being the daughters of the male hindu who died after the commencement of ..... of the property is not filed and even the affidavit of facts, as required under section 26 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 is not filed and, thereforee, plaint is to be rejected on this ground alone.5. i do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the ..... plaintiffs have ceased to have any interest in the property. it is also stated that all pleas made in the plaint are to the effect that parties are in joint possession of the property, whereas the fact is that plaintiffs are not in possession of any portion of the suit property and the ..... per article 17(vi) in schedule ii. there is no dispute about this proposition of law. counsel for the plaintiff has then placed reliance on neelavathi v. n. natarajan : 2scr307 , wherein the supreme court has laid down that it is settled law that the question of court-fee must be ..... bhalla died on 2-1-1993 leaving behind the plaintiffs is his only legal heirs. within few months, smt. swadesh kumari bhalla also died on 23-5-1993. she died intestate and accordingly the suit property is inherited by the plaintiffs (claiming through cdr. manu raj bhalla) and defendants in four equal shares .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : May-24-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Ker38; 2006(2)KLT1022
..... decision was rendered by the civil court after the establishment of the family court under the family courts act ?2. is the partition by metes and bounds made as per the final decree just and equitable ?point no. 1:5. section 7 of the family courts act reads (only relevant portion) as follows:7. jurisdiction:(1) subject to the ..... is not a ground to hold that only the family court has jurisdiction. in a given case, the husband or wife may be arrayed as a party to the partition suit though he or she is not entitled to share, but his or her spouse has share, in order to make such other person, who is ..... the subject matter of the suit like a suit for partition and they are also in the party array, simply because among the parties a husband and wife are also arrayed on rival side that cannot attract clause (c) of explanation to section 7(1) of the act.11. in shyni v. george and ors. 1997 (1) klj 573, this ..... was) referred to krishnan namboodiri's case and held thus, which is very relevant in this context:according to me a suit for partition of that nature in which a party to a marriage claims a share in the property not only along with her husband or as against her husband but also along with ..... independent rights in respect of the property. could it be said that the co-ownership property of the husband, wife and son is the property of 'the parties to a marriage or either of them'? evidently not. therefore, i am of the view that the ingredients of clause (c) of the explanation are not .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-16-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC910; (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN40; JT2006(1)SC318; 2006(1)KLT459(SC); 2006(1)SCALE258; (2006)1SCC794
..... individual members or groups of members the right to claim partition, only by general consent of all the members.' all the members of the thavazhi of cheriyammu amma then existing were parties to exhibit b-9. even otherwise, after the madras marumakkathayam act, 1932, by virtue of section ..... court would be justified in overruling that decision especially in the context of section 38 of the madras marumakkathayam act, 1932 and the right to partition conferred on the members of an undivided marumakkathayam tarwad or thavazhi. learned counsel submitted that even in the decision in achutha menon v. jaganatha menon and ors. (supra) the court has proceeded on the ..... the members of the thavazhi of the cheriyammu amma who were then alive. ammalu amma and ors. v. lakshmy amma and ors. (supra) relied on by learned senior counsel mr. nambiar itself recognizes, that a partition by common volition was possible under the marumakkathayam law. the full bench has said, 'marumakkathayam tarwads were partible, before statutes conferred on ..... held that notwithstanding the transaction exhibit-b-9, the sons of cheriyammu amma were entitled to shares in the property. he also relied on the decision in achutha menon v. jaganatha menon and ors. : air1984ker51 . he further submitted that it could not be forgotten that viswanathan nair was the eldest male member of the thavazhi and hence .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-27-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD260; 2007(2)ALT600
..... avoid multiplicity of suits and that the plaintiff may get appropriate relief without being hampered by procedural complications.14. having regard to the prohibition under sub-section (2) of section 22 of the act to grant relief of possession or partition in a suit for specific performance of a contract unless it had been specifically claimed, the court below is not justified in dismissing the ..... petitioner does not dispute the fact that by virtue of the order of eviction, she was already evicted from the suit schedule house.10. from the pleadings of both the parties, it is clear that by virtue of the proposed amendment the plaintiff did not plead any new facts but sought to add a further relief based on the very same ..... .(3) the power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under section 21.13. in babu lal v. hazari lal kishori lal : 3scr94 , with regard to the scope and object of section 22, the supreme court observed as under:the section enacts that a person in a suit for specific performance ..... . it was also observed that the application for amendment which was filed at a belated stage is impermissible. the said order is under challenge in this civil revision petition.5. i have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the suit was still coming up for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-2006
Reported in : (2006)143PLR10
..... of a joint property. till such time the property is actually partitioned by metes and bounds, the respondent owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others. therefore, the respondent is competent to seek eviction under section 13-b of the rent act.8. the argument that the respondent is not the owner competent ..... party to the proceedings. the presence of such co-landlords as co-plaintiffs or co-applicants, as are not classified landlords as defined in section 23-j of the act does not alter the nature of claim preferred by the widow landlady and, ..... not object....6. in the said judgment, the court concluded that the major sons though co-owners may not have been joined as party to the proceedings but it would not adversely affect the maintainability of the proceedings. it would also not make any difference if they are also joined as ..... should have been granted. reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this court reported as kundan singh v. lal singh (2004-3) 138 p.l.r. 530.4. it is further argued that in a suit for partition between the co-sharers, a preliminary decree was passed. it is not known which portion will fall ..... v. sunder singh : 1scr67 , that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties .....Tag this Judgment!