Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Nandan Singh & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal NO. 6760 OF 2019 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 9233 OF 2017)
Decided On : 02-09-2019
Leave granted - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - [Transfer of Property Act, 1882] - The court found that the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption or repurchase of the property did not have any legal basis as the partition and the Memorandum of Partition were not denied or challenged, and the second respondent had the undisputed legal right to sell the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court referred to previous judgments to explain the concept of cause of action and held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. The appeal was allowed, and the plaint was rejected as it disclosed no cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming the right to repurchase a portion of property that was sold by the second respondent, based on a Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008. The plaintiff's claim was based on the potential privacy concerns due to the sale of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim did not have any legal basis as the partition and the Memorandum of Partition were not denied or challenged, and the second respondent had the undisputed legal right to sell the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court also held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had a legal basis to claim the right to repurchase the property sold by the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's claim did not have any legal basis as the partition and the Memorandum of Partition were not denied or challenged, and the second respondent had the undisputed legal right to sell the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court also referred to previous judgments to explain the concept of cause of action and held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the plaint was rejected as it disclosed no cause of action. No costs were awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. In spite of second call, there is no appearance on behalf of Krishna Nandan Singh, the plaintiff, the first respondent before us.
3. The first respondent has filed a civil suit T.S. No. 97/16 against Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar, the appellant before us and Anil Kumar, the second respondent before us. The second respondent is the brother of the first respondent.
4. The plaint admits that there was amicable division and partition of property bearing Holding no. 163 old Holding no. 42, Ward No. 10 (New) 7 (Old), Mahal No.1, Mohalla- Mainpura, P.S. Danapur, Patna amongst respondent no.1, respondent no.2 and their brother Sunil Kumar Mehta. This partition was evidenced by recording Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008, which was signed and executed by the three brothers.
5. The factum of partition and the partition deed itself is not challenged and questioned in the civil suit preferred by the first respondent. In fact, Sunil Kumar Mehta, the third brother is not even a party to the suit. The suit also acknowledges that the second respondent was allotted and became the owner of south-eastern part of the aforesaid holding whereas the first respondent stands recorded as the owner of another portion and that the first respondent and second respondent have been paying taxes for the respective portions to Nagar Parishad under receipts.
6. The grievance and the cause of action as pleaded in the civil suit by the first respondent is that the second respondent had sold the portion allotted to him on partition to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 25.01.2016. This sale deed, it is claimed, is void abilities and inoperative as there is every chance that the privacy of the first respondent's family would be affected and destroyed. It is pleaded that the first respondent has got a right and authority to repurchase the portion allotted to the second respondent under the partition evidenced by the Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008.
7. The Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008 which is placed on record and an accepted/admitted document does not give any right of pre-emption to the first respondent. There is also no pleading to the said effect in the plaint. As the partition and the Memorandum of Partition are not denied or challenged, ownership of the second respondent and his right to sell the property in terms of the Memorandum of Partition are and would be undisputed legal rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. There was no restraint to exercise of this right vested with the second respondent by contract or under any statute. This is not alleged and adverted to in the plaint. It is also an undisputed position that Sunil Kumar Mehta who was on partition allotted the third portion of the property, has sold and transferred his portion to a third party vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2009. The said sale deed is not under challenge and was not questioned by the first respondent.
8. The aforesaid factual and legal position being admitted and accepted in the plaint, we fail to understand how and on what basis, the first respondent claims right of pre-emption or repurchase of the portion that was allotted to the second respondent in terms of amicable division as evidenced by Memorandum of Partition dated 04.12.2008. On the aforesaid partition, the second respondent became the sole and exclusive owner of the portion allotted to him, a legal position, which is not even controverter and denied by the first respondent in the plaint.
9. In the aforesaid background, it is to be held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action for the relief prayed, that is, a direction to the second respondent to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the first respondent and to put the first respondent in possession. There does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is entitled to invoke and enforce. For a right to exist, there must be a correlative duty which can b
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
