Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute: Upholds 1984 Partition and Sale Deed, Overturns High Court’s Reliance on Alleged 1965 Partition"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court in its recent judgment addressed a complex family property dispute, focusing on the validity of the 1984 partition and the legality of a subsequent sale deed. The Court critically examined the earlier reliance on an alleged 1965 oral partition and its implications on the property rights among the family members.

The dispute revolved around the partition and entitlement to various properties within a family. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the properties, asserting an oral partition in 1965. The defendants, on the other hand, pointed to a 1984 partition that allegedly allocated the properties in question. The key issues involved the validity of these partitions and the legality of a sale deed executed by one of the defendants for a property allegedly part of the family assets.

On the Alleged 1965 Partition: The Supreme Court noted that reliance on the 1965 oral partition by the High Court was erroneous as it was not originally part of the plaintiffs' pleadings. An attempt to amend the plaint to include this partition was rejected, lending no basis for considering evidence related to the 1965 partition.

On the Validity of the 1984 Partition: The Court upheld the validity of the 1984 partition, noting that the properties in question were allotted to the branch of Raghvendrarao, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. This decision was reinforced by the absence of challenges to the 1984 partition in subsequent legal proceedings.

On the Sale of Property: The Supreme Court upheld the sale deed executed in 2001 concerning one of the disputed properties. It was found that the sale did not violate any interim order, as the seller was not a party to the suit when the interim order was passed.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's findings regarding the disputed properties. The properties were declared rightfully belonging to the appellants, and the 2001 sale deed was upheld.

Date of Decision: 4th March 2024

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.

 

Latest Legal News