Partition Suit - Procedure to be adopted - partition of each and every item is necessary ? - it is not necessary and incumbent that each item of the immovable properties in a suit for partition need be divided by metes and bounds in a final decree, if any of the sharers is desirous of retaining any of the properties without,possibly altering its physical integrity and instead their comparative valuation can be kept in view and the final decree can be modulated accordingly.-When the plaintiff/decree holder is interested in retaining the lands, instead of being forced to sell away his share of lands, the advocate-commissioner should have worked out the feasibility thereof while finalizing his report instead of dividing every piece of petition schedule properties into 24 bits and pieces, consequently to realize that such properties are incapable of being partitioned and cannot be conveniently delivered possession of.- The plaintiff/decree holder is directed to exercise his option in writing within thirty days by filing an appropriate memo before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, disclosing the particulars of lands preferred to be retained by him. -2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports



A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 06.01.1997
in the following terms:

        Item Nos.1 and 3 to 9 of plaint A schedule property was
ordered to be partitioned into 24 equal shares by metes and
bounds and allotted 7 such shares each to the plaintiff, 1st
defendant and the 2nd defendant. One such share each was
allotted to the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5. Delivery of possession of
the respective shares was ordered after evicting the 1st defendant
therefrom. Past profits for a period of two years prior to the filing of
the suit and mesne profits from the date of suit till date of delivery
of possession with respect to the share allotted to him, of the
properties of plaint A schedule was also ordered. In all other
respects, the suit claims were rejected.

        In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.207 of 2000 for passing final decree. Final decree was
passed on 13.07.2000.
Thereafter, I.A.No.13 of 2001 was moved for
amendment of the final decree dated 13.07.2000 and the said I.A.
was allowed on 03.04.2002 determining the profits from
22.04.21983 to 13.07.2000.
I.A.No.12 of 2001 was moved under
Order 20 Rule 18 C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate-
commissioner for partition of item Nos.1 and 3 to 9 of the petition
schedule properties into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and
for allotting 7 such shares to the petitioner/decree holder.
Along
with other related I.As, I.A.No.12 of 2001 was allowed on
08.03.2010, determining as to how much of land each of the
plaintiff/decree holder, the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant would
get towards their 7/24th share respectively, in all the items 1 and 3
to 9 of the petition schedule and in view of the practical difficulty
and the utility ordered their sale so that sale proceeds can be
distributed to all the sharers.
   Therefore, going by the good, bad and indifferent qualities of
all the lands and also taking into account their respective values,
the decree holder should be allowed an option to retain the
available lands in one village to the nearest valuation
corresponding to his overall 7/24 share value.
When the
plaintiff/decree holder is interested in retaining the lands, instead
of being forced to sell away his share of lands, the advocate-
commissioner should have worked out the feasibility thereof while
finalizing his report instead of dividing every piece of petition
schedule properties into 24 bits and pieces, consequently to realize
that such properties are incapable of being partitioned and cannot
be conveniently delivered possession of. For instance, it is
suggested that lands of certain extents which are ordered to be
partitioned are available in Avidi Village, Vanapalli village and
Pasupalli village.
Therefore, an option should have been allowed to
the plaintiff/decree holder to choose to retain the lands to the
nearest extent of value of his share and the lands so chosen by
him, if, exceeds the value of the total 7/24 share in all the items
put together, the plaintiff/decree holder should be directed to
deposit the differential amount to the credit of I.A.No.12 of 2001,
so that the same can be made over to the other sharers
appropriately.
Similarly, if the value of the lands proposed to be
retained by him is less than the overall value of 7/24 share of the
plaintiff/decree holder, in all the items so decreed, after the sale of
rest of the lands the differential amount may be made over to him
from the sale proceeds.
 It should be noted that a similar option for
retaining the lands representing as nearer as is possible to the
7/24 share from the rest of the lands shall be allowed to be
exercised by the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant.

        So far as the house properties are concerned, since the
plaintiff/decree holder has agreed for sale of the same, the sale
proceeds thereof would be distributed ratably amongst all the
sharers.

        The plaintiff/decree holder is directed to exercise his option
in writing within thirty days by filing an appropriate memo before
the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, disclosing the
particulars of lands preferred to be retained by him. Memo should
be filed by serving copies in advance on the opposite side.
Thereafter, further period of 30 days should be accorded to
defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondents herein for retention of lands
equivalent to their respective shares subject to the adjustment of
differential amount in the same manner as was indicated supra for
decree-holder, if they so desire. In the event, the choice exercised
by any of the sharers happened to be the same item of the petition
schedule, then, the tie, be resolved by drawing lots.. If necessary,
then the rest of the lands be put to sale.

         Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.No.12 of 2001 along
with other I.As, as confirmed in A.S.No.28 of 2010 stands modified
and only to this limited extent the second appeal stands allowed in
view of the legal principle that it is not necessary and incumbent
that each item of the immovable properties in a suit for partition
need be divided by metes and bounds in a final decree, if any of the
sharers is desirous of retaining any of the properties without,
possibly altering its physical integrity and instead their
comparative valuation can be kept in view and the final decree can
be modulated accordingly. No order as to costs.

        The miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal,
shall stand closed.--2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more