Merely asserting prior oral partition does not negate the right to seek partition; substantial evidence and facts must be examined to determine cause of action, and claims of limitation require trial evaluation.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Civil Revision applications arise for setting aside the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) I, Dhanbad in Title (Partition) Suit No. 151 of 2013 whereby the petitions filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (in short ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of joint family properties, trade and business of trading companies among the plaintiff, his brothers and sisters those who are alive and their successors who are not alive. The plaintiff claimed to be the co- sharer of the properties, trade, business and trading companies, mentioned in Schedule B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K & L which were said to be either ancestral property or properties purchased from the profits of ancestral property and with the aid of joint family property, by the joint labour of the whole family, and it was asserted that there was a nucleus sufficient to acquire the property and interest thereon by profitable investment thereof for the benefit of the joint family.

3. The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) for partition of 1/9^th share of the plaintiff in the properties mentioned in Schedule C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L and allotment of separate and exclusive management and control to the plaintiff upto that extent.

(ii) For appointment of a Court Receiver to manage the affairs of the properties mentioned in Schedule C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L in view of the reported attempts by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also by respondent Nos. 7 to 8 to divert cash and monies and resort to asset stripping/transfer to benami entities or creating 3^rd party interest therein and to maintain accounts of profit and loss, with the assistance of such person or persons whom such court receiver thinks fit and proper to assist him and furnish such statement of account etc. to the court periodically, on such terms and conditions as the courts thinks fit and proper, till the disposal of the suit for partition.

(iii) For appointment of a survey knowing Advocate Commissioner for appointment of respective shares in the immovable properties consisting of house, buildings and landed properties.

(iv) For appointment of qualified Assessor or any valuer for determining the valuation of the properties so that any of the parties to the suit may in lieu of his share may compensate in terms of money proportionately.

(v) For the cost of the suit.

(vi) For any other or further relies to which plaintiff may be found legally entitled to.”

4. In title partition suit, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Devendra Kumar Agarwalla, Mahendra Kumar Agarwalla and Yogendra Kumar Agarwalla respectively are the sons of Late Banwari Lal Agarwalla and defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 6, namely, Annapurna Devi Ruiya, Sarala Devi Todi and Shakuntala Devi Kanoi respectively are the daughters of Late Banwari Lal Agarwalla.

5. As per the plaint, Schedule A is the genealogy; Schedule B is the name of Companies formed during the lifetime of Banwari Lal Agarwalla; Schedule C is the details of companies running in original names or by changing name of Schedule B companies; Schedule D is the company formed after the death of Banwari Lal Agarwalla; Schedule E is the name of the partnership firms; Schedul