AI Overview...
Partition Suit against Surviving Members – Summary
-
Legal Right to Partition
A suit for partition typically involves co-owners or coparceners asserting their right to divide joint family or partnership property. Several sources confirm that a joint owner or coparcener can file a partition suit to establish their share or claim a division of property (e.g., ANJANAMMA . N W/O. MUNIYAPPA VS N. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH - Karnataka, SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY vs SRI NARAYANA RAO M S - Karnataka, B.Usha vs S.Saradha (deceased during pendency of the suit) - Madras). -
Survivor's Rights and Limitations
Courts have held that surviving members of a family or partnership may have limited rights to seek partition, especially if the property has already been partitioned or inherited solely by survivors. For instance, in SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY vs SRI NARAYANA RAO M S - Karnataka, the court found that plaintiffs had no right to seek partition as property devolved on surviving brothers, indicating that prior inheritance or partition can bar subsequent claims. -
Prior Partition and Oral Agreements
Several cases recognize that prior partition agreements, whether oral or written, can affect the maintainability of a new partition suit. Courts have dismissed suits where evidence shows that partition was already effected or agreed upon earlier (e.g., Suresh Chand Partition VS Ram Charan Sharma - Rajasthan, SRI MADEGOWDA @ CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA, S/O SRI.DYAPEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. vs SMT KEMPAMMA, W/O DYAPEGOWDANA NINGEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. - Karnataka, Dodla Chinnabbai Reddy VS Dodla Kumara Swami Reddy - Andhra Pradesh). -
Legal Principles and Statutory Framework
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Partition Act, 1893, are frequently cited to determine coparcenary rights and the validity of partition claims. Courts generally uphold that once a valid partition has taken place, subsequent suits for partition are barred unless new grounds emerge (e.g., ANJANAMMA . N W/O. MUNIYAPPA VS N. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH - Karnataka, Velayammal vs Lakshmi - Madras). -
Partition of Partnership Firms
In partnership contexts, suits for accounts and dissolution are common. However, strangers or third parties cannot sue surviving partners for partnership assets unless they have a direct interest, and courts tend to dismiss suits where the partnership has been dissolved or the suit is based on a non-existent estate (e.g., PRAVASH CHANDRA VS FATE CHAND JAIN - Orissa). -
Impact of Family Relationships
Family relationships, such as co-parcenary or joint ownership, influence partition rights. The birth of a son or change in family composition can convert property into joint family property, affecting partition rights (e.g., Dharma Shamrao Agalawe VS Pandurang Miragu Agalawe - Supreme Court, ANJANAMMA . N W/O. MUNIYAPPA VS N. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH - Karnataka).
Analysis and Conclusion
Partition suits against surviving members or co-owners hinge on whether a valid prior partition exists, the nature of the property (joint family or partnership), and legal inheritance rights. Courts tend to dismiss suits where prior partition has been established, or where property has devolved solely to survivors, emphasizing the importance of clear evidence of partition and inheritance. Parties seeking partition must establish their legal entitlement, considering prior agreements, statutory rights, and family law principles.
References: - PRAVASH CHANDRA VS FATE CHAND JAIN - Orissa - Dharma Shamrao Agalawe VS Pandurang Miragu Agalawe - Supreme Court - B.Usha vs S.Saradha (deceased during pendency of the suit) - Madras - ANJANAMMA . N W/O. MUNIYAPPA VS N. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH - Karnataka - SRI N KRISHNA MURTHY vs SRI NARAYANA RAO M S - Karnataka - Suresh Chand Partition VS Ram Charan Sharma - Rajasthan - BASAVARAJ @ RAVASAHEB S/O SHIVAPPA PATIL vs SMT. IRAKKA W/O ABHASAHEB PATIL - Karnataka - SRI MADEGOWDA @ CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA, S/O SRI.DYAPEGOWDA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS. vs SMT KEMPAMMA, W/O DYAPEGOWDANA NINGEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. - Karnataka - Dodla Chinnabbai Reddy VS Dodla Kumara Swami Reddy - Andhra Pradesh - Velayammal vs Lakshmi - Madras
Search Results for "Partition Suit against Serviving"
1958 0 Supreme(Ori) 132 • India - Orissa
DAS
Fact of the Case: Plaintiffs filed a suit for accounts of a partnership firm, Pravash Chandra Kanti Chandra, which ... The suit was filed for a formal declaration of dissolution of the partnership, rendition of accounts, and a preliminary decree for ... court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and restored the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit ... Nor can the stranger partner sue the serviving members as partners for the manager estate, if any. ... It is now well-settled that t....
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 158 • India - Supreme Court
E.S.VENKATARAMIAH, K.N.SINGH
was filed by Pandurang and Champabai in Regular Civil Suit, on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barsi for partition ... joint family properties – Act came into force she took Pandurang, the 1st respondent, in adoption and immediately thereafter a suit ... co-parcener – If a son is born to the sole surviving co-parcener, the said properties become the joint family properties in his ... any event be the subject-matter of the partition suit. ... On 9-8-1968 she took Pandurang....
2019 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 2318 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mrs. PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J
partition of property and rectification of share percentage. ... (A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXIV - Partition - Memorandum of Compromise - Plaintiffs sought preliminary decree for ... (Paras 10, 24) ... ... (C) Legal heirs - Entitlement - The suit involved claims over family property ... The defendants 9 to 12 the said suit instituted C.S.No.700 of 2011 seeking to (i) partition of schedule mentioned property ; (ii) recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,618/- from defendants 1 to 4, towards the pl....
2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 369 • India - Karnataka
B.V.NAGARATHNA, HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Joint family properties of the Hindu Undivided Family – Suit for partition ... Whether the first defendant proves that, he inherited the suit schedule properties exclusively as he is the sole surviving coparcener ... among all the members who would be entitled to a share in the coparcenary property when a regular partition takes place, that is ... In other words, the joint owner can file a suit for partition, until partition#HL_E....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11398 • India - Karnataka High Court
... ... Findings of Court: ... The plaintiffs have no right to seek partition as the property devolves on the surviving brothers ... (A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8, 9, and 11 - Partition suit - Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) rejected by Trial ... (Paras 15, 16) ... ... Facts of the case: ... The suit involves partition claims by the children ... It is therefore clear that all the defendants are of the view that the plaintiffs have no legitimate right to seek #....
2007 0 Supreme(Raj) 2376 • India - Rajasthan
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
96 – Hindu Law – Permits oral partition – partition of disputed property already done between 2 sons – ... No.2 Yogesh Chand Pathak for partition of the disputed property was dismissed by the trial court. ... So far as the issue - whether under Hindu law oral partition can be taken place, is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly conceded that under Hindu Law oral partition is permissible. ... Bhagwati Devi, therefore, it clearly shows that no partition had taken pla....
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9454 • India - High Court of Karnataka
E.S.INDIRESH, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, JJ
for partition of joint family properties, denoting shares based on relationships of the involved parties. ... (A) Partition Act, 1893 - Sections relevant for considering the entitlements of shares in joint family properties - The Trial Court ... appeal raised included the contention that the shares allotted by the Trial Court were contrary to law and were based on a prior partition ... Hence, the plaintiffs have made a request to the defendant No.1 to effect partition in respect of the joint family properties of Shivappa....
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 1478 • India - High Court of Karnataka
N S SANJAY GOWDA, J
The appeal raised issues of property rights under coparcenary law and prior partition agreements. ... This case pertains to Regular First Appeal No. 20 of 2007 concerning the ownership of properties following a family partition. ... The court affirmed the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the previous partition legally diminished ... It is clear from Ex.D31 and from the other revenue documents produced that there was a partition earlier between Madegowda and Ningegowda and in the said #HL_S....
2002 0 Supreme(AP) 1067 • India - Andhra Pradesh
D.S.R.VERMA, B.S.A.SWAMY
A-1 was entered into in year 1982 and the suit was filed in year 1986 - Considering all these factors we hold that finding of learned ... Order 1 , Order 41, Rule 33, Order 41 Rules 22 and 33 Order 41, Rules 14 - Plaintiff contention of 1st defendant is that in fact partition ... parties and, therefore, according to him in reality partition had already taken place in the year 1953 and same was given effect ... partition or not. ... It was a case where in a suit for partition, two broth....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66324 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Defendants contest the suit asserting prior partition and the nature of property as self-acquired. ... (A) Civil Procedure Code, Section 96 - Appeal Suit regarding partition and separate possession of property - Plaintiff claims rightful ... share in ancestral property - Dismissal of suit on grounds of partial partition, non-joinder of necessary parties, and limitation ... Similarly, the properties that were allotted to Sengoda Gounder under the partition deed dated 1....
Filter by Legal Phrase
