Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Abdul Kadhar – Appellant
Versus
Barakath Begum – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
1. The instant second appeal has been filed by a third party to O.S.No.1233 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli.
(A) Factual background:
2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff had filed the above said suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the ground floor of Door Nos.51 and 52 of the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree came to be passed on 17.08.1992 and a final decree was passed on 02.08.2007. In the final decree proceedings, Shop No.51 was allotted to the share of the plaintiff.
3. Based upon the above said final decree, the decree holder had filed E.P.No.17 of 2009 for taking delivery of the property. While the said Execution Petition was pending, the present appellant had filed E.A.No. 175 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C, raising objection to the delivery of the property on the ground that he is in possession of the Shop in Door No.51 from the year 1976 onwards, having taken the building on lease from the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.
4. According to the appellant/tenant, his father has taken the lease from the year 1976 and after the death of his father, he i
Tenancy established during the pendency of a partition suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and does not grant rights against the decree holder.
The court reaffirms that a sale pending litigation is not void but does not bind the party in the pending suit, allowing partial claims based on property allocation.
In partition suits involving adverse possession, procedural adherence is critical; issues of tenancy must be resolved before partition can occur, and failure to provide proper notice invalidates clai....
The Court emphasized the importance of summary determination of questions under Rule 101 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. and the applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It also clarif....
Joint family properties must be protected in partition suits, ensuring the rights of co-sharers against potential losses during ongoing legal disputes.
A second suit for partition is not maintainable concerning property previously partitioned; purchasers under lis pendens retain the right to appeal against decrees affecting their interests.
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
