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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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