Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Chinta Upadhyay wife of Dhananjay Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Upadhyay – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 06.08.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Dumka, in Final Decree Case No. 01 of 2018, whereby, the civil miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner, has been rejected.
3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Dhananjay Upadhyay and others instituted Title (Partition) Suit No. 46 of 2006 against the defendants praying therein a decree claiming partition of 1/5th Share in Schedule-A and alternatively 1/4th Share in Schedule-B properties fully described in the Schedule of the plaint and possession of for delivery the specific allotted portion as per the final decree to be given to the plaintiff.
4. He submits that the specific case of the plaintiff is that the Defendant No.4 namely Mritunjay Upadhyay sold his share i.e. specific portion of 4 Kathas 5 Dhurs in favour of Smt. Chinta Upadhyay i.e. the petitioner and she is in exclus
The court upheld the validity of prior property rights and found no illegality in the lower court's order concerning the exclusion of the petitioner's share in the final decree proceedings.
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case for an injunction; without it, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are irrelevant.
The Court emphasized the need for proper measurement of plots as per sale deeds for partition and reiterated the position of law in respect of partition of immovable properties through the Court Comm....
The necessity of including all necessary parties in a partition suit is essential, and issues can be addressed appropriately following a Pleader Commissioner Report.
A party must provide valid reasons for any delay in filing applications and demonstrate the relevance of evidence to the case, as per the procedural rules under the CPC.
The main legal principle established is that a joint trial can be ordered to avoid contradictory verdicts and multiplicity of judicial decisions when some properties and issues are common in multiple....
A party seeking partition must challenge the validity of prior transactions affecting the property and cannot seek partition of property that has been sold and is in the possession of third parties w....
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
