SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 491

P. S. DINESH KUMAR, T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
Niroop D J S/O Sri Jayaramegowda – Appellant
Versus
D. A. Jayarame Gowda, S/O Late Anne Gowda – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. K. S. Ganesha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. N. Jayavelu, Adv., Sri B.S.Sachin, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court held that in a suit for partition, all necessary parties and joint family properties must be included; if incomplete, judgment should be deferred and omitted properties/parties should be added before deciding on merits. (!) (!) (!) - The Court remanded the case to the Trial Court directing inclusion of all properties and D.T. Goutham as a party, with pleadings completed and evidence permitted, so as to decide the case on merits. (!) (!) - The decision nullified the Trial Court’s dismissal as a partial partition and set aside the judgment, noting the suit was incomplete for not including all joint family properties and necessary parties. (!) (!) (!)

How to ensure all joint family properties and necessary parties are included in a suit for partition?

What is the remedy when a partition suit is found to be incomplete and non-joinder is alleged?

What are the directions to remand a partition suit for including omitted properties and parties and deciding on merits?


JUDGMENT :

T.G.Shivashankare Gowda, J.

In R.F.A.No.1410/2017, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.57/2011 on the file of the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru (for short 'the Trial Court'), dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession.

2. In RFA.Cr.Ob.No.3/2020, the defendants have challenged the impugned judgment seeking setting aside of the finding recorded on re-casted issue No.1, issue Nos.2 to 4 and additional issues.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife; plaintiff, defendant Nos.3 and 4 are their children. Plaintiff has brought the instant suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the plaint 'B' schedule property (for short 'suit schedule property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that through registered Partition Deed dated 30.05.1979 between defendant No.1 and his brothers, suit schedule property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Plaintiff and defendants are in joint and constructive possession of the properties. The kh

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top