Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1974 Supreme(Kar) 13

V.S.MALIMATH
RAJABIBI – Appellant
Versus
S. AMEERALI – Respondent

Advocates:
Kadidal Manjappa, M.PAPANNA

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The suit was held not maintainable due to non-impleading of other co-sharers, following Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271 (!) . - The Supreme Court/High Court directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint and implead other co-sharers within two months, failing which the suit would be dismissed (!) . - The appeal was allowed, judgments/decrees set aside, and case remitted to permit amendment and impleading of co-sharers to proceed on merits (!) . - The plaintiff claimed exclusive title based on a sale deed from co-sharers; other co-sharers were in possession or had rights inhering to the property (!) . - The decision cites that co-sharers are necessary parties; non-impleading is a fatal defect warranting dismissal if not remedied (!) . - The case discusses the procedural remedy of amendment to implead co-sharers and continuing the suit on merits (!) . - The prior decrees were set aside and remanded for fresh disposal on merits after amendment (!) . - Advocates involved: Kadidal Manjappa, M. Papanna (!) .

What is the maintainability of a suit for declaration of ownership brought by one co-sharer without impleading other co-sharers?

What is the effect of non-impleading co-sharers on a property dispute as per Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1965 SC 271?

What are the directions of the appellate court regarding amendment and impleading of co-sharers to proceed with the suit on merits?

( 1 ). This is a second appeal by the legal representatives of the first defendant against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore in R. A. 45 of 1969, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Ramanagaram in O. S. No. 171 of 1966.

( 2 ) THE first respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction or in the alternative for possession and for cancellation of the khata in respect of the suit site made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant and for an appropriate direction to the second defendant to change the khata of the suit in the name of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to one Syed Yedulla. He died in the year 1944. His further case is that on his death, his two sons Syed yacoob and Syed Mohammed became the owners of the suit property and were in possession of the samp. It is further averred that the said two brothers sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on the 15th of june, 1960. It is his further case that the second defendant the Municipality did not change the khata in spite of his request and maintained khata in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None identified. Based on the provided text, there are no explicit statements, keywords, or phrases indicating that these cases have been overruled, reversed, criticized, or abrogated.

**Category: Cited as Authority (Followed/Relied Upon)**

* **SATISH CHAND GUPTA VS SARVESH CHAND GUPTA - 1984 0 Supreme(Del) 155:** This case describes the reliance of counsel on *Rajabibi and Others v. S. Ameerali and another* (AIR 1974 Karnataka 115) to support the principle that a suit for ejecting a trespasser can be maintained by a co-owner. The context implies it is being used as a supportive precedent.

* **K. L. Chandak VS Jai Chand - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 854:** This entry lists *Rajabibi & Others v. S. Ameerali & Another* and *Jamal Uddin & another v. Mosque at Mashakganj & others* in a list format, appearing to provide established authorities on property/trespass law.

* **Hassan Nizamuddin VS Khanqah-E-Ameena Mahboob Society, Hyderabad - 2019 0 Supreme(Telangana) 293:** This case cites the *Rajabibi vs. Ameerali* (AIR 1974 Karnataka 115) decision alongside *Bal Kitetan Nursery School*, indicating it is being referenced as a governing precedent for the matter at hand.

* **SHIVANGOUDA LINGANGOUDA VS GANGAWWA BASAPPA - 1966 0 Supreme(Kar) 47:** This entry expresses the substantive legal principle derived from the aforementioned precedents—specifically that a co-owner may sue a trespasser without joining other co-owners as necessary parties. It reflects the "followed" outcome of the cited case law.

* **K. L. Chandak VS Jai Chand - 2011 0 Supreme(Del) 854:** The treatment is slightly ambiguous as it is presented as a list of case citations without explicit verbs like "followed" or "applied." However, given the context of legal briefing, it is categorized as "Cited as Authority" because it is referenced in an official legal list alongside other rulings.