Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.AGARWAL AND OTHEWRS versus PRADEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.Agarwal And Othewrs v. Pradeep Kumar And Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 397 of 1987 [2007] RD-AH 3559 (1 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 28)

Civil Revision No. 397 of 1987

Pramod Kumar Agarwal and others Versus Pradeep Kumar  and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Revision is withdrawn / treated to be withdrawn to this court under section 24 C.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

This revision is directed against order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Meerut in O. S No. 620 of 1972 Shyam Behari Lal Agarwal and others Vs. Sunder Lal and others. Through the impugned order application of plaintiff opposite party seeking amendment in the plaint has been allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant defendant has argued that suit is for partition and through the amendment application it was stated that some more properties had also been acquired jointly by all the parties during pendency of the suit and partition of the said properties was also sought.

Learned counsel for the applicant has raised two arguments. First is that in a suit for partition, partition of only those properties which were jointly held by all the parties until date of filing of the suit may be sought and even if some property was jointly purchased during pendency of the suit, partition can not be sought in respect thereof. I do not agree with this argument. In a partition suit it is necessary or at least desirable that all the properties jointly owned shall be partitioned. The other argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the properties regarding which amendment application was filed were exclusive properties of the defendants and not joint properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The stage to decide this question has not yet arrived. It is obvious that in case plaintiffs fail to prove that the property purchased during pendency of the suit (or any other  property included in the plaint) is joint property absolutely no relief of partition regarding the said property will be granted by the court. If defendants are able to prove that purchased properties are their individual properties then there is no question that any share in the said properties would be granted by the court to the plaintiff. By way of abundant precaution it is directed that this  question must specifically be decided in the suit that whether the properties included in the plaint through amendment application are joint properties of the parties or exclusive properties of the defendants.

With the above observations revision is dismissed.

Dated: 1.3.2007

Waqar


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.