Back
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
K. Sattamma, W/o Late K. Ramaiah – Appellant
Versus
K. Lalitha, W/o Late K. Mahesh Kumar – Respondent
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10.11.2022, passed by the Court of XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.174 of 2019 in O.S.No.221 of 2014.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The trial Court after full-fledged trial, and on appreciating the evidence on record, passed the preliminary decree. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed the aforesaid I.A. praying the Court to pass final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree by allotting 1/6th share to them in the suit schedule property as per the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
4. The trial Court on perusing the material available on record and on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, passed the impugned order, dated 10.11.2022, adjourning the case to 05.12.2022 for taking steps under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act and for filing the Market Value Certificate of
The court upheld the trial Court's decision to auction property instead of partitioning, citing impracticality based on the Advocate Commissioner's report.
The court emphasized the need to consider objections, fix reserved price, and follow the principles of the Partition Act and previous court orders in auctioning the property.
The court affirmed that final decree proceedings under the Partition Act must adhere to clear judicial directives and allowed parties the right to participate in property auction sales as mandated by....
The court ruled that under the Partition Act, a co-sharer can apply to purchase shares at valuation even after a sale order, emphasizing the court's duty to fix the upset price and uphold constitutio....
The court affirmed that under the Partition Act, when division by metes and bounds is impractical, public auction of shared property is permissible, with priority given to co-sharers only if they exp....
The court established that under the Partition Act, a court may direct the sale of property instead of division when it is determined that division is not feasible or would not be beneficial to the s....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the Partition Act's provisions, particularly regarding the right of pre-emption and the process for property sales, allowing the second defendant to ....
In a partition suit, the court has the power to pass a second preliminary decree if circumstances justify it, such as the death of parties or sale or loss of properties. However, this power can only ....
A property not capable of partition due to practical constraints may be sold under the Partition Act, despite objections from co-owners regarding involuntary sale.
A plaintiff invoking Section 2 of the Partition Act cannot later seek relief under Section 3; only other shareholders can do so, emphasizing strict procedural adherence.
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
