Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments



By:MAANAS JAJORIA         property measuring 77 sq. yards is part of a larger plotDigitally Signed
Signing Date:12.12.2024                                                               By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:34:32                                                                              KUMAR KAURAV
                                                            - 10 -
measuring 580 sq. yards and the entire property (larger plot) measuring 580 sq. yards bears house no. 272. The entire plot measuring 580 sq. yards, therefore, seems to be a common plot. The present suit is for partition of only 77 sq, yards, If the partition effected in 1984 was not done in an equitable manner as alleged, it is difficult to comprehend as to why partition of the entire plot of 580 sq. yards was not sought.

14. The first Appellate Court also made pertinent observations with respect to the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs that the respondent/defendant was allotted an excess portion of the common plot during the family partition in 1984, receiving 342 sq. yds. while appellants/plaintiffs were allocated 286 sq. yds. The Court found that the aforesaid claim does not advance the case of the appellants/plaintiffs as the alleged unequal distribution of land in 1984 should have necessitated the inclusion of the entire plot within the ambit of the partition to ensure fairness. It was observed that in partitions of joint family property, equal land distribution among coparceners is not always imperative, and instances of unequal allotment are not uncommon. Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Apoorva Shantilal Shah, HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat-1, Ahmedabad2, the Court emphasized that a partial partition by the father between himself and his sons is not invalidated by unequal distribution among coparceners. The Court further emphasized that if such a partition prejudices any coparceners, its validity can be challenged in a proper proceeding and until such a partial partition is deemed invalid by a competent court, it remains valid. Thus, the first Appellate Court held that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to provide any substantial evidence to substantiate the claim and the presumption remained (1983) 2 SCC 155 Digitally Signed Signing Date:12.12.2024 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:34:32 KUMAR KAURAV