Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Krishna Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Seema Kumari – Respondent
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Patna in Title Suit No. 337 of 2010.
3. Briefly stated, the facts, as it emerges from the record, are that the petitioners as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 337 of 2010 are seeking declaration that plaintiffs are joint owners in possession of the suit properties and for further declaration that gift deed dated 21.10.1994 purportedly executed by plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant no.1/respondent no.1 (for convenience I will refer him as defendant no.1) is forged, fabricated, void ab initio and inoperative besides seeking other reliefs. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs claiming that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs/petitioners through the registered sale deed dated 06.07.1994 and these properties are situated within Patna District. Defendant no.1 ap
A counter claim must relate to the plaintiff's claims; dissimilarity in cause of action renders it non-maintainable.
A counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.
Counterclaims may be allowed after closing evidence if justified by circumstances; procedural rules must serve justice.
A defendant cannot file a counterclaim against a co-defendant under the CPC, as the provisions only allow counterclaims against the plaintiff.
Counter claims in partition suits must be directed against the plaintiff; co-defendants cannot initiate claims solely against each other without notice, as all parties have interchangeable roles.
A counterclaim in a partition suit must be against the plaintiff; failing to notify co-defendants constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering any ex parte decree unsustainable.
The absolute right of the respondent in the suit property and the unsustainable nature of the plea of adverse possession were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Counter claims must be against plaintiffs and not co-defendants; prior partitions cannot be reopened based solely on alleged inequities.
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid contract for specific performance and emphasized burden of proof in such claims.
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
