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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.Lakshminarayanan, J.
C.Chinnappa – Appellant
Versus
Jayamma and ors. - Respondents
S.A.No.1399 of 2013 and C.M.P.No.11947 of 2016
Decided On : 02-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Agilesh
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Mani

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.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 11, Order IX Rule 13, Order XLI Rule 27, and Section 96 - Second suit for partition - A second suit for partition regarding property previously partitioned is not maintainable. Appellant's rights as a lis pendens purchaser were established, and his appeal against the ex-parte decree was deemed maintainable. (Paras 21, 31, 40)

(B) Judgment Requirements - A judgment must contain a concise statement of facts, points for determination, and the decision with reasons, failure to meet this renders the judgment illegal. (Paras 25-26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a lis pendens purchaser, contested the validity of a partition suit concerning a property previously decreed in favor of the original plaintiff, Mallamma, who had passed away, leading to complications regarding the current suit filed by her legal heirs. (Paras 7-9)

Findings of Court:
The second suit for partition cannot be maintained as it lacks jointness in property, and the previous decree stands binding on the parties. Furthermore, the trial court’s judgment did not meet the legal requirements for a valid judgment. (Paras 21, 40)

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of a second partition suit concerning previously decreed property, requirements of a valid judgment, and the rights of a lis pendens purchaser to appeal a decree against their vendor. (Paras 21, 40)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that a second suit for partition is not maintainable unless challenging the previous decree, and emphasized the necessity for judgments to comply with procedural requirements. A purchaser under lis pendens has the right to appeal. (Paras 40, 30)

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment and decree in the lower court was set aside, and the second suit for partition was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. procedural history and final decree applications. (Para 6 , 7)
3. issues presented in the appeal. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's decision on the admissibility of documents. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. second suit's maintainability after partition. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. judgment requirements under civil procedural law. (Para 25 , 26)
7. legal standing of lis pendens purchasers in appeals. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
8. judicial precedent regarding title and appeal rights. (Para 30 , 33 , 34)
9. final decision and orders issued by the court. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

V.Lakshminarayanan, J.

This case has a checkered history. The suit schedule mentioned properties are items belonging to one Chinna Mallegoudu @ Mallaiah. Mallaiah and his wife Ammaiakka @ Puttamma had one son by name Puttiah and 5 daughters namely Mallamma (deceased), Jayamma, Devarajamma, Dhakshayini @ Sulochana and Nirmala. Mallamma seems to have passed away leaving behind her husband Mahadevan and three daughters namely Sailashri, Bhuvanashri, Sudhashri as her legal heirs.

2. Tmt.Mallamma filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.105 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Hosur. She sought for the relief of partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of her 1/7th share. The present suit schedule mentioned property namely S.No.225 of Arulam village in Denkonikottai taluk, Dharmapuri District (presently Krishnagiri District) is shown as item 1 of the suit schedule mentioned property in O.S.No.105 of 1974. Summons were issued in the said suit and the defendants entered appearance before the Court on 28.06.1974. The suit was decreed as prayed for, with costs.

3. To put the preliminary decree so obtained into operation, an application was taken out for passing of final decree in I.A.No.1144 of 1975. The said final decree application was allowed on 26.04.1975. At the time of final decree, it was noticed that there were practical difficulties in dividing the house and house sites and therefore, the plaintiff therein, Mallamma, gave up her right with respect to house and house sites and in lieu of this giving up of her share, she was alloted additional extent of 1.40 cents to her share in Survey No.225 of the aforesaid Village.

4. Mallamma initiated execution proceedings to take possession of the properties situated in S.No.225. The Execution petition was numbered as R.E.P.No.2 of 1976. The learned District Munsif at Hosur ordered delivery of possession of the property on 29.01.1976 and the delivery was taken on 01.02.1976 and execution petition was terminated on 19.02.1976. By virtue of the aforesaid proceedings, Mallamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule mentioned property. 5. All things were quiet for a period of nearly 40 years. The defendants 2, 4, 5 & 6 in O.S.No.105 of 1974 presented a fresh suit for partition in O.S.No.128 of 2005. In the meantime, as Mallamma had passed away her legal heirs Mahadevan, Sailashri, Bhuvanashri and Sudhashri were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5. They were served with summons and it seems they had also filed written statement giving forth the details of the previous suits. After having filed the statement they remained exparte. Consequently, the trial Court passed the judgment in the following terms:

6. This exparte decree was passed on 15.12.2005. In order to set aside the exparte judgment and decree, an application was taken for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. This application was numbered as I.A.No.99 of 2007. It was application was allowed on the condition of payment of cost of Rs.500/- on or before 21.04.2008. Since the cost was not paid, the application stood dismissed on 25.04.2008. As the preliminary decree had already been passed in the proceedings, an application was taken out for passing of final decree in I.A.No.489 of 2008. This application was allowed by a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top