MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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