1. In a suit for partition,
Civil Court cannot go into the question of title, unless the same is incidental
to fundamentals of claim: Trinity
Infraventures Ltd. v. M.S. Murthy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 738, Decided on
15-06-2023]...
2. The Supreme Court has said in a suit filed for partition, the courts
must endeavour to comprehensively adjudicate and decide the right entitlement
and share of the parties and must avoid multiplicity of proceedings or
relegating parties to a fresh round of litigation. Case Title: VIKRANT KAPILA AND ANOTHER vs.
PANKAJA PANDA AND OTHERS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5355 OF 2023 @
S.L.P.(C) NO. 6793 OF 2023) DT: 10-10-2023
3. IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3233 OF 2009 [Arising out
of SLP©No. 1263 OF 2007] Maddineni Koteswara Rao ..Appellant VERSUS
Maddineni Bhaskara Rao & Anr. ..Respondent- It is well settled that a suit for partition stands
disposed of only with the passing of the final decree. It is equally settled
that in a partition suit, the court has the jurisdiction to amend the shares
suitably, even if the preliminary decree has been passed, if some member of the
family to whom an allotment was made in the preliminary decree dies thereafter.
The share of the deceased would devolve upon other parties to a suit or even a
third party, depending upon the nature of the succession or transfer, as the
case may be. The validity of such succession, whether testate or intestate, or
transfer, can certainly be considered at the stage of final decree proceedings.
An inference to this effect can suitably be drawn from the decision of this
Court in the case of 9 Phoolchand v Gopal Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1470)-
4. Vineeta Sharma v.
Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 The Supreme Court held that a woman/daughter shall also be
considered as a joint legal heir as a son and can inherit ancestral property
equally as male heir, irrespective that the father was not alive before the
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into effect. Ancestral property
rights to child born out of live-in relationship
5. K.C. Laxmana v. K.C.
Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 471 The Supreme Court held that a Hindu father or any other
managing member of a Hindu Undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral
property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious
purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose. Therefore, a deed
of gift regarding the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’
does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’.
6. Kattukandi Edathil
Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737 The Supreme Court ruled that even
children born from a live-in relationship have the coparcenary right to inherit
the family’s property. A child who is born to live -in partners living together
for an extended period has rights over the ancestral property of his father.
7. Arunachala Gounder v.
Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520 The Supreme Court held that the self-acquired property of
a Hindu male dying intestate i.e., without writing a will, would devolve by
inheritance and not by succession. Further, the Court said that such property
shall be inherited by the daughter, in addition to the property of the
coparcenary which was obtained through partition. The Court observed that if a
woman dies intestate, then any ancestral property passed onto her from her
father would be bestowed upon the heirs of her father and similarly the
property passed onto her from her husband’s family would be bestowed to her
husband’s heir
8. Shasidhar & Ors vs Ashwini Uma Mathod & Anr
on 13 January, 2015 Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1139, 2015 AIR
SCW 777, 2015 (1) AKR 828, 2015 (11) SCC 269, (2015) 2 ALL WC 1345 24. We may
consider it apposite to state being a well settled principle of law that in a
suit filed by a co-sharerer, coparcener, co-owner or joint owner, as the case
may be, for partition and separate possession of his/her share qua others, it
is necessary for the Court to examine, in the first instance, the nature and
character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the
suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties,
whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral property, or joint
property or coparcenery property in his/her hand and, if so, who are/were the
coparceners or joint owners with him/her as the case may be. Secondly, how the
devolution of his/her interest in the property took place consequent upon
his/her death on surviving members of the family and in what proportion,
whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in
favour of any family member or outsider to inherit his/her share in properties
and if so, its effect. Thirdly whether the properties in suit are capable of
being partitioned effectively and if so, in what manner? Lastly, whether all
properties are included in the suit and all co-sharerers, coparceners, co-
owners or joint-owners, as the case may be, are made parties to the suit? These
issues, being material for proper disposal of the partition suit, have to be
answered by the Court on the basis of family tree, inter se relations of family
members, evidence adduced and the principles of law applicable to the case.
(see "Hindu Law" by Mulla 17th Edition, Chapter XVI Partition and Reunion - Mitakshara Law pages 493-547).
9. CIVIL
APPEAL NO(S). 6406-6407 OF 2010; 13th June, 2022 KATTUKANDI EDATHIL KRISHNAN
& ANR. versus KATTUKANDI EDATHIL VALSAN & ORS Trial
courts should initiate final proceedings suo motu after preliminary decree
passed in partition suits: trial
courts should not adjourn partition decree matters indefinitely or wait for
filing of a separate proceedings towards a final decree, once a preliminary
order has been passed,
No comments:
Post a Comment