Skip to main content

In partition suit, every interested party deemed to be a plaintiff

Cause Title : A. Krishna Shenoy Vs Ganga Devi G. & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8080/2019, 

Date of Judgment/Order : 11-09-2023

Corum : M. M. Sundresh; J., Prashant Kumar Mishra; J.

Citied: 

  1. Malluru Mallappa (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Kuruvathappa and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 313
  2. Somakka (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2022) 8 SCC 261

Background

A suit for partition was filed, on the first occasion in which the petitioner herein was arrayed as a defendant but his two sister were not arrayed as parties. An attempt made by them subsequently during the final hearing of the proceedings, did not yield any fruit. The preliminary decree passed in the said suit has become final as against the petitioner. Thereafter, the sisters filed an independent Suit seeking partition. During the pendency of the said suit, they filed an application seeking yet another preliminary decree in the earlier suit against the petitioner before us. Accordingly, a supplementary preliminary decree was passed, which, in turn, is confirmed under the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present special leave petition was filed.

The primary objection of the plaintiff was that the earlier Courts, have not taken into consideration the fact that the impleadment application filed by the contesting respondents was dismissed.

Judgment

The SC however dismissing the application observed that there is no error in the order executed by the lower courts. In a suit for partition, every interested party is deemed to be a plaintiff.  The fact that the applicants are the sisters of the petitioner is not in dispute and they ought to have been arrayed as defendants in the main suit itself.

The SC further observed that Law does not bar passing of numerous preliminary decrees.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Defamation: A newspaper is in no different position from an individual

In The Publisher and Editor of Divya Himachal and anr. Versus Parkash Chand and ors., the HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that a newspaper is in no different position from an individual and it cannot give currency to a defamatory statement and escape upon the ground itself that, it showed that it did not believe that which it had published. That may have some bearing on the question of damages but not upon the question of liability. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention is in no way less in the case of newspaper publications other than that required from ordinary men. In India, since we have a written constitution, it is recognized that freedom of speech is not an absolute unlimited right. Article 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions on what is guaranteed by article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the mass media must maintain high professional standards and are obliged to verify the correctness of the news disseminated. Publication of false ne
Post a Comment
Read more

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th October, 2012 that the  law  can  be  summarised  that  in  an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains  merely  a  trustee/bailee 
7 comments
Read more