Subject :
ORDE R
When this appeal is called on for hearing , it is brought to our notice that ‘K.A.Joseph’, th e first respondent, passed away on 21.06.2014 . We are apprised by the learned counse l representing the respondents that he died a bachelor and his estate devolved on respondent Nos . 2 and 4 to 9. Since the legal representatives o f the deceased-respondent are already impleaded a s party-respondents, no formal substitution i s required and we record the said fact .
The present appeal arises out of a suit fo r partition and the parties have approached us at th e stage of the preliminary decree. The area of th e total estate initially was 37 cents which wa s acquired by ‘Abraham’ and ‘Joseph’, th e predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs and th e defendants respectively. There was a sale dee d executed on 14th February, 1962 in which 15.25 cent s out of the total estate was sold by the lega l representatives of ‘Abraham’ along with ‘Joseph’ . Certain portion of the total estate was als o acquired under the prevailing land acquisition la w for construction / widening of a road .
Mr. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel , appearing on behalf of the appellants, has argue d that there was an earlier oral partition whic h ought to prevail and, hence, a subsequent suit fo r partition by the legal heirs of deceased ‘Abraham ’
would not be maintainable .
On going through the materials disclosed, w e are unable to accept the submission that there wa s a prior oral partition. We come to this finding , inter alia, in the light of the sale deed which wa s executed on 14th February, 1962, as also a deed o f mortgage which was made Exhibit B3 before the Tria l Court created on 2nd September, 1958, jointly . It is the case of the first defendant in th e suit (one of the successors in interest o f ‘Joseph’) that land to the extent of 2 cents out o f the estate, situated in Survey No. 1057 o f Mattanchery Village, Kochi District, was purchase d by him from Thommen Varghese, who was a purchase r through court auction in O.S. No. 193 o f
1121(M.E.) .
In our opinion, this part of the propert y has to be excluded from the partible estate. Th e observation of the High Court to the contrary i s set aside. It shall now be open to the parties t o apply for a final decree and the appellants woul d be at liberty to apply for contiguous apportionmen t in equity and if such an application is made, th e Trial Court shall consider the same on facts and i n accordance with law .
The present appeal stands partly allowed i n the above terms .
Pending application(s), if any, shall stan d disposed of .
…………………………………………………...J .
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE ]
…………………………………………………...J .
[SANJAY KUMAR ]
NEW DELHI ;
JANUARY 11, 2024 .
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.5 SECTION XI- A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDING S Civil Appeal No. 5830/201 3 K.J.AUGUSTINE (DEAD) THR. LRS. Appellant(s )
VERSU S K.A.JOSEPH . & ORS. Respondent(s )
Date : 11-01-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today .
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOS E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMA R For Appellant(s) Mr. V Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv .
Mr. Jogy Scaria, AO R Ms. Beena Victor, Adv .
Mr. Vivek Guruprasad Ballekere, Adv .
Mr. Keerthipriyan E, Adv .
Ms. M Priya, Adv .
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sreegesh M.K, Adv .
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AO R Mrs. Meera Karta, Adv .
Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv .
Mr. Kiritkumar Govindlal Sheth, Adv .
Mr. Ashray Behura, Adv .
Mr. Deepak Parashar, Adv .
Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv .
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followin g
O R D E R
The present appeal stands partly allowed i n terms of the signed order which is placed on th e file .
Pending application(s), if any, shall stan d disposed of .
(SNEHA DAS) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR )
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH )
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.