Back
1896 Supreme(Mad) 19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Shephard, S Ayyar
Subramanya Chettyar
Versus
Padmanabha Chettyar And Ors.
Decided On : 19 March, 1896
The legal principle established is that a purchaser from a member of an undivided family may not always have the right to bring a suit for partition of the particular property purchased, and the reasons for allowing partial partition depend on preventing fraud and the advantage of the family.
Headnote:
Partition Suit - Purchaser's Rights - The court discussed the rights of a purchaser from a member of an undivided family to bring a suit for partition of the particular property purchased, highlighting the reasons for allowing partial partition in some cases and not in others.
Fact of the Case:
The court discussed the rights of a purchaser from a member of an undivided family to bring a suit for partition of the particular property purchased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Judge should have followed the ruling in Venkatachella Pillay v. Chinnaiya Mudaliar 5 M.H.C.R. 166, and reversed the decree, remanding the case for disposal according to law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rights of a purchaser from a member of an undivided family to bring a suit for partition and the reasons for allowing partial partition in some cases and not in others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the reasons for allowing partial partition in some cases and not in others, emphasizing the need to prevent fraud of the rights of the family and the advantage of the family to ascertain the particular property which the purchaser may retain.
Final Decision: The court reversed the decree and remanded the case for disposal according to law, with costs to be provided for in the revised decree.
1. The District Judge ought to have followed the ruling in Venkatachella Pillay v. Chinnaiya Mudaliar 5 M.H.C.R. 166 which is clearly in point.
2. At first sight it may seem strange that a purchaser may not bring a suit for partition in circumstances in which a member of the family other than the vendor may bring such a suit. There are reasons, however, why the one suit for partial partition should be allowed and the other not.
3. To allow the purchaser from one member of a family to bring a suit for the partition of the particular property purchased might facilitate members of an undivided family in dealing with the property in fraud of the rights of the family. It is not unreasonable that the purchaser should have no greater powers against the family than his vendor. On the other hand, it is to the advantage of the family to be able to ascertain by partition the particular property which the purchaser may retain and to be freed from all relations with a stranger to the family. Nor is the ability to sue for a partition of the particular property altogether disadvantageous to the purchaser, for if all the family property were brought into the suit it might turn out that the purchaser took nothing. The decision in Venkatachella Pillay v. Chinnaiya Mudaliar 5 M.H.C.R. 166 is not, in our opinion, shaken by the observations, in the case in Venkaya v. Lakshmayya I.L.R. 16 Mad. 98.
4. We must reverse the decree and remand the case for disposal according to law.
5. Costs to be provided for in the revised decree.
