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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
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...
7 comments
Read more