Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.Murali Shankar, J.
L.James – Appellant
Versus
L.Alex and ors. – Respondents
A.S(MD)No.79 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.3002 of 2021
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Partition - Indian Succession Act - Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C. - [Partition] - [Indian Succession Act] - [Order XII Rule 6, Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C.] - The court discussed the suit for partition, the entitlement of shares under the Indian Succession Act, and the application of Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C. The court highlighted the discretionary nature of the power under Order XII Rule 6, the need for clear and unambiguous admissions, and the discretion of the court in delivering a quick judgment on admission.
Fact of the Case:
The suit is for partition. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to 1/6 share in the suit properties, while the defendants admitted the plaintiff's entitlement to 2/15 shares. The trial Court passed the impugned judgment on admission, granting preliminary decree for division of suit properties into 15 equal shares.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court rightly invoked Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C. for passing judgment on admission. The court concluded that the appeal was devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues included the correctness of the judgment on admission, the liability to set aside the judgment and decree on the ground of partial partition, and the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of the power under Order XII Rule 6, the need for clear and unambiguous admissions, and the discretion of the court in delivering a quick judgment on admission. The court also clarified the meaning of 'first hearing' under Order XV Rule 1 of C.P.C.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The suit pertains to a claim for partition of certain properties, with the plaintiff asserting entitlement to a 1/6 share, while the defendants admitted entitlement to 2/15 shares (!) (!) .
The parties are Christians governed by the Indian Succession Act, which entitles the widow to 1/3 share and the children to 2/3 shares of the estate (!) .
The trial Court invoked Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to pass a judgment on admission, leading to a preliminary decree dividing the properties into 15 shares, with specific shares allocated to each party (!) (!) .
The defendant/appellant challenged the judgment on the grounds that the power under Order XII Rule 6 is discretionary and that the scope of Order XII Rule 6 and Order XV Rule 1 are entirely different, questioning the applicability of both provisions in the same suit (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the trial Court’s decision, emphasizing that the judgment on admission was appropriate as there were no triable issues, and the application of both provisions was permissible in this context (!) (!) .
The appellant also contended that a property measuring 29 cents was left out of the partition, but the court held that such a claim for partial partition was not sustainable because the parties are Christians, and the doctrine of partial partition does not apply to them (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the suit was filed against the properties allotted in a previous compromise decree, and the parties had admitted the nature of the properties and their respective shares, which justified the judgment on admission (!) (!) .
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, affirming the correctness of the trial Court’s judgment (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER : Appeal suit filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2019 in O.S.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
The Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.77 of 2019, dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Padmanabhapuram.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein will be referred as per their status/ranking in the trial Court.
3. The suit is for partition.
4. Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the first defendant and the deceased Louis.
5. The case of the plaintiff is that the three items of suit properties are item Nos. 8, 10 and 11 in suit in O.S.No.95 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Eraniel, which were jointly allotted to the defendants 6 to 11 in that suit as 'E' schedule as per compromise decree, dated 11.01.2005, in O.S.No.95 of 2004; that the plaintiff is 10th defendant and the defendants 1 to 5 are the defendants 6 to 9 and 11 and each has become entitled to 1/6 shares in the suit properties; that there is a family house and two shop buildings in the first item of the suit property, which was constructed by the deceased Louis and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6 share in that buildings also; that the suit properties have not been partitioned by metes and bound sofar; that the plaintiff came to know that the first defendant is making preparations to create fraudulent and collusive document in respect of suit properties in favour of the fourth defendant and if any invalid documents are created without the consent of other co-sharers, it will cause much inconvenience in the matter of equitable partition in the suit and that despite the repeated demands of the plaintiff, which includes the last demand made on 30.11.2018 to effect partition, the defendants are not co-operating the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit for partition.
6. The defence of the first defendant is that the plaintiff and the defendants are Christians; that as per the Indian Succession Act, widow is entitled to 1/3 share and their children are entitled to get 2/3 shares; that in O.S.No.95 of 2004, pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Eraniel, compromise decree was passed which reveals that the legal heirs of the deceased Louis are jointly allotted with compromise 'E' schedule property i.e., entire suit item Nos.8 to 10 and 11 as their share and that since the plaintiff and the defendants being the legal heirs of the deceased Louis, the first defendant is entitled to get 1/3 share in all the suit items and the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 are entitled to get 2/3 shares in all the suit items; that the first defendant is competent to give her 1/3 share in all the suit items; that there are two old shop buildings situated on the west of the suit first item of the property in which, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of one shop building and the defendants 2 and 3 are in possession and enjoyment of the another shop building; that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 have rented out their respective shop buildings and are receiving rent amount; that the first defendant has no intention to alienate any property to the fourth defendant or anybody else; that after execution of the document, the fourth defendant constructed two residential buildings and car porch; that the first defendant, after excluding the area of 15.250 cents given to the fourth defendant, is entitled to get the balance area in 1/3 share of first item with proportionate road frontage and is entitled to get 1/5th of 2/3 of suit items 1 to 3.
7. The fourth and fifth defendants have filed separate written statements reiterating the contentions raised by the first defendant. In addition to the contentions raised by the first defendant, the four
The discretionary nature of the power under Order XII Rule 6, the need for clear and unambiguous admissions, and the discretion of the court in delivering a quick judgment on admission.
The court established that for a judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the C.P.C. to be granted, the admissions must be unequivocal and clear, and the presence of serious factual disputes pr....
Admissions in pleadings or related documents allow for expedited judgments under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, affirming that clear and unequivocal admissions can preclude the need for further evidence.
(1) Judgment on admission – For exercise of discretion by Court under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, admission must be unequivocal – No particular form of admission is necessary – Judgment on admission is ....
The court emphasized the need for clear admissions and the appropriate use of discretion under Order XII Rule 6, ruling that judgments on admissions must be based on unequivocal facts, necessitating ....
The plaintiff's failure to disclose previous litigation, non-joinder of necessary party, and the existence of a Will bequeathing the property to another party led to the dismissal of the suit for par....
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
