Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Ahmed Sayed – Appellant
Versus
Shekh Mohd. Jahid – Respondent
ORDER
1. This first appeal has been filed, assailing judgment and final decree of partition dated 27.05.2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Tonk in Civil Suit No.58/2005 titled as Ahmed Sayed & Ors. Vs. Shekh Mohd. & Ors. The property in question comprises residential house and five shops situated at Guljar Bagh, Tonk. Parties are muslim and governed by muslim personal law of succession.
2. The relevant facts, required to be noticed for purpose of present first appeal are that property in question belongs to one Shri. Mohd. Sayeed @ Kale Miya. After his death, he was survived by his three sons namely Ahmed Sayed (herein appellant No.1), Shekh Modh. Jahid (herein respondent No.1) and Mohd. Sadik (herein respondent No.2) and four daughters namely Sabatinussia (herein appellant No.2), Jarena and Jakiya (herein respondent Nos.3 and 4) and Jamilunissa (now deceased and represented through respondent Nos.5 to 9). It is undisputed and rather admitted position between parties that out of properties of father, one shop No.1 had been given to waqf during life time of father and as such this shop is not available for partition between parties. It is also not in dispute
The process of partition of immovable properties as provided in law, including the equalization of shares and the provision for payment of owelty, was emphasized by the court.
The first Appellate Court must address all issues and contentions raised by the parties and record findings supported by reasons on all issues and contentions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a party agrees to the mode and manner of partition before the Commissioner, they cannot resile from the same.
The court established that under the Partition Act, a court may direct the sale of property instead of division when it is determined that division is not feasible or would not be beneficial to the s....
The court upheld the partition and equitable distribution of property based on the Commissioner's report, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolution in family disputes.
The court reaffirmed that partition must balance the established rights of original owners against claims of subsequent purchasers, applying equitable principles under the Partition Act, 1893.
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' right to partition of joint family property, ruling that the defendants failed to prove prior partition, and emphasized the necessity of registration for partition ....
The entitlement to partition and separate possession, and the division of property based on the preliminary decree were the central legal points established in the judgment.
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
