suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside= there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon. he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for. Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional. In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal. Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:- The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS


suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside=
there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon.
 he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional.
In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal.
 Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant.
 For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:-
The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

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

Court Fee - whether on refund of advance money or on entire sale agreement consideration - Specific performance of contract - suppression of material facts(previous litigations on the property) - contract rescinded - suit filed for refund of money - court fee is to be paid on refund claimed amount but not on entire sale agreement consideration = 2015 CHENNAI(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

it is clear that seeking relief of specific performance of the contract is different from seeking return of advance amount. It has been held that if a suit is filed without seeking specific performance of contract, but only for return of advance amount paid, subsequently, the plaint cannot be amended. 16. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pendency of various litigations, in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement for sale, hence, he rescind the contract and demanded the respondent for return of the advance amount.  At this stage, the Court below cannot go into the merits of the case for deciding the Court fees payable. The Court below has to consider the pleadings of the petitioner / plaintiff. As per the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pending litigation, in respec...
Read more