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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1610

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Krishnabai & Others – Appellant
Versus
K. A. Krishnamurthy & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate for Mr.P.Valliappan. For the Respondents:R2 & R3 Mr.P.Mani, Advocate. No appearance for R1 & R4.

Judgement Key Points

What is the proper remedy when a partition suit’s preliminary decree does not declare the rights of all defendants and some parties are ex parte? What is the correct scope and effect of amending a preliminary decree in a partition suit to declare the shares of petitioners or other interested parties? What is the proper course to avoid grave miscarriage of justice when several defendants seek to modify the preliminary decree before final decree is passed?

What is the proper remedy when a partition suit’s preliminary decree does not declare the rights of all defendants and some parties are ex parte?

What is the correct scope and effect of amending a preliminary decree in a partition suit to declare the shares of petitioners or other interested parties?

What is the proper course to avoid grave miscarriage of justice when several defendants seek to modify the preliminary decree before final decree is passed?


Judgment :-

The petitioners are the defendants 4 & 6 to 11 in the suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent herein namely O.S.No.203/98 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. The suit was dismissed. Against that, an appeal was filed before this Court in A.S.No.256/81. That was also dismissed. Against that, L.P.A.No.129/2002 and S.A.No.796/83 were filed and they were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court granting a decree for partition of 8/21 share for items 12 and 13 and 1/7th share in items 1 to 11.

2. The properties in respect of which the dispute arose belongs to one Appadurai who had two wives. The plaintiff and defendants 4, 5 and 6 were children through the first wife. The second wife was the first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 were her son and daughter respectively. The defendants 7 to 11 were the tenants. The defendants 1 and 2 claimed that they were beneficiaries under the Will executed by the late Appadurai. The Division Bench rejected the Will. The plaintiff who is the first respondent herein claimed that the properties were joint family property and therefore he was entitled to a larger share. This was also rejected by the Division B















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