In a partition suit, a plaintiff cannot withdraw unilaterally if defendants oppose, as all parties stand equal under the law.

CAV ORDER

The plaintiff, since deceased represented by her legal representatives/petitioners 1(a) to 1(c) are before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the LXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City in O.S.No.8121 of 2012, rejecting the memo filed by the plaintiff seeking dismissal the suit as not pressed.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the protagonists to the lis. The plaintiff, original petitioner one Smt.Sheshamma dies during the proceedings. Therefore, petitioners 1(a) to (c), the legal heirs of Sheshamma are brought on record as petitioners. The defendants are also represented by their legal heirs as defendants 1(b) and 1(c) and they are respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition. All are members of the same family.

3. One Keshavaiah, owner of the suit schedule properties had three children. The other member of the family K. Ramachandraiah had several children. All the parties enter into a family arrangement on 30-12-1998 by drawing up a family settlement deed. A suit is then instituted on some dispute between the members of the family in O.S.No.2086 of 2006, seeking partition of the suit schedule properties. The said suit ends up in a compromise not between all the parties to the suit but between few of them on 18-11-2006. The parties to the compromise were the families of Keshavamurthy, defendants 2 to 5, Defendants 11, 12, 13 and 14 excluding the plaintiff. In accordance with the compromise, several properties were distributed which led the other persons who are not parties to the compromise to file a suit in O.S.No.8121 of 2012 again seeking partition of the suit schedule properties, which were according to the plaintiff, joint family properties. The original plaintiff Sheshamma contended that she owns 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties as a coparcener and so had filed the suit for partition. The plaint later comes to be amended to declare the compromise decree dated 18-11-2006 as not binding on Sheshamma, the plaintiff. Sheshamma dies during the proceedings. On 08.08.2019, the legal representatives of Sheshamma were brought on record. When both the defendants died during the pendency of the proceedings, their legal representatives have come on record. The proceedings go on. Written statement was filed by the defendants. Long thereafter, on 18-01-2023, the petitioners file a memo seeking dismissal of the suit as not pressed. Respondents 1 and 2 objected to the filing of the memo on the score that it was filed 11 years after institution of the suit and it was a collusion between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 18 leaving out respondents 1 and 2, who are the legal representatives of the original defendants. On 30.01.2023, several of the defendants filed their memo of ‘no objection’ for withdrawal or dismissal of the suit and to receive compensation. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a memo enclosing plethora of judgments objecting to the withdrawal of the suit. It is their claim in the objections that their legitimate share, which they have inherited through their late mother should be determined. The concerned Court in terms of the order impugned, relying on the judgment of the division bench of this Court in the case of SMT.GOWRAMMA v. NANJAPPA , [2001 SCC OnLine Kar. 501] rejected withdrawal memo on the score that in a suit for partition; plaintiff and the defendants are on equal footing and if anyone objects to withdrawal of the suit, the suit may be continued by the defendants, transposing themselves as plaintiffs in the suit. By a subsequent order dated 01-02-2025, the concerned Court allows resp