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

2010 Supreme(Ker) 365

K.T.SANKARAN
Antony – Appellant
Versus
Joseph – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For The Petitioner:N.N. Sugunapalan (Sr.Advocate.), For The Respondent:Babu Karukapadath, Advocate.

Judgment :

1. The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to a sale of immovable property under the Partition Act, 1893.

2. In O.S.No.250 of 1996, Sub Court, Kochi, filed by the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 6, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 11.1.2000. The plaintiff was held entitled to get 1/7 share. The preliminary decree was modified in appeal, holding that the 1/7 share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property includes share in the building as well. Respondents 1 to 6 filed an application for passing the final decree. In the final decree application, it was made clear that if division in specie was not possible, the property could be sold and the proceeds divided.

3. A Commissioner was appointed, who reported that it was not possible to divide the property by metes and bounds giving shares to all the sharers. On the request made by the parties, sale of the property by public auction was ordered as per the order dated 16.10.2003. The property consists of three cents of land and a residential building. Auction was held on 29.3.2005. Respondent No.16
























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