Back
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna – Appellant
Versus
Sita Saran Bubna – Respondent
For agricultural land assessed to the payment of revenue to the government, the court passes only one decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in the suit property, directing the Collector (or any gazetted subordinate) to effect the actual partition or separation in accordance with such declaration and section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (!) (!) (!) (!)
This entrustment to the Collector ensures that the matter does not return to the court upon the Collector's action in terms of the decree, and the court does not interfere except in cases of complaints by affected third parties. There is no requirement for a final decree by the court in such cases, as the partition process is completed administratively by revenue authorities familiar with agricultural lands. (!) (!)
In contrast, for non-agricultural immovable property or movables where division requires further inquiry, a preliminary decree is passed, followed by appointment of a Commissioner and a final decree. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judgment :-
R.V. Raveendran, J.
The first respondent and his mother filed a suit for partition against petitioner and two others in the year 1960 in the court of the First Additional Judge, Muzaffarnagar, for partition and separate possession of their one-third share in the plaint schedule properties and for rendition of accounts. The suit was in respect of three non-agricultural plots and some movables. After contest the suit was decreed on 25.2.1964 directing a preliminary decree for partition be drawn in regard to the one-third share of the plaintiffs in the said plots and a final decree be drawn up through appointment of a Commissioner for actual division of the plots by metes and bounds.
.2. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner (and others) filed an appeal before the Patna High Court which was dismissed on 29.3.1974. The first respondent filed an application on 1.5.1987 for drawing up a final decree. The petitioner filed an application on 15.4.1991 to drop the final decree proceedings as it was barred by limitation. The said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that once the rights/shares of the plaintiff had been finally determined by a preliminary decree, there is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
