Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Claims of Prior Partition Not Substantiated by Documentary Evidence or Credible Witness Testimony: Andhra High Court Dismisses Appeal in Partition Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, an appeal challenging a trial court’s decree for the partition of properties has been dismissed. The court found no substantial evidence to support the defendants’ claims of a prior partition. This decision came after a detailed assessment of testimonies and documents presented during the trial.

The primary legal point deliberated in the judgment was whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for partition of properties which were being managed by the eldest brother under a familial agreement. The appeal was also concerned with issues related to the alleged prior partition and non-joinder of necessary parties.

The properties in question were managed by the first defendant, the eldest brother, who registered the properties in his name as per an understanding among the brothers for equal shares. The plaintiffs, other siblings of the first defendant, contested that despite their requests, the first defendant refused to partition the properties, leading them to seek legal recourse. The defendants argued that there had been a prior partition and also raised concerns regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties, asserting that other family members had possession under unregistered sale agreements.

The court pointed out that the defendants could not provide documentary evidence or credible witness testimony to prove the occurrence of a prior partition. The plaintiffs’ testimonies about the joint ownership and management of properties remained unchallenged.

Witnesses brought forward by the defendants failed to confirm any prior partition, and there were no revenue records or other documents to substantiate the claims.

The court found that the argument regarding non-joinder of necessary parties lacked merit. There was no evidence to show that the other relatives claimed by the defendants had any legal stake in the properties based on valid transactions.

It was noted that the response to the legal notice sent by the plaintiffs did not mention any such prior transactions, undermining the credibility of the defendants’ claims.

Decision: The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the partition of the properties as per the original suit. The judgment stressed that the defendants had failed to substantiate their claims with adequate proof, leading to the affirmation of joint ownership and the necessity of partitioning the properties equally among the rightful owners.

Date of Decision: 2nd May 2024

Shaik Khadar Saheb (deceased) and Others vs. Shaik Rahamthulla and Others

Similar News