Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further, the defendants' father had purchased two more sites, one situated at Hosur and the another site at Bangalore bearing no.34, 4th Cross, Muneshwara Nagar, Bandepalya Post, Bangalore. But the sale deeds were made in the name of the present the plaintiff as they were all in good terms. The plaintiff was not having any job when the sites were purchased, he was a mechanic hardly earning Rs.700/- to Rs.750/- per month, to give him moral support these sites were registered in his name and the sites were purchased by this defendant and his father. The sites were not included in the oral partition as it was decided to divide them on subsequent date. The plaintiff taking undue advantage of the sites standing in his name has not included in the suit. This suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit.

.17. The question that arise for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit for partial partition is maintainable. In this regard issue No.3 is framed as to maintainability of the suit for partial partition. In view of the decisions reported in ILR 1998 Kar 681, it is held as follows :
(A). HINDU LAW- PARTITION- Maintainability of suit for Partition of alienated item only, even though the Joint family owned number of properties-Trial Court held suit not maintainable as the inclusion of all Joint Family Property was must. Lower Appellate Court took the view that suit for partial partition is maintainable- In second Appeal the High Court holding that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable restored the Decree of the Trial Court. (B). CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No.V of 1908) SECTION 100-Whether a suit for partial partition is maintainable or not is a substantial question of Law.

.18. The suit for partial partition is not maintainable. The plaintiff cannot exclusively claim 4/6th share in the suit schedule property excluding site No.6. The suit as brought by the plaintiff is for partial partition in respect of the suit property without including site No.6 standing in the name of the 1st defendant. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decisions, the plaintiff's suit for partial partition is not maintainable. The plaintiff's father died in the year 1986 intestate. The plaintiff admits that he is residing in the ground floor and he has let out the ground floor and collecting rent and 1st defendant is residing in the first floor since 20 years. The claim to be put forth by the plaintiff for partition is 4/6th share in respect of the suit property is highly belated. The release deed is of the year 2013. The notice issued is in the year 2013. After lapse of two decades, the plaintiff claims partition of the property including the site No.6 standing in the name of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Thus, I answer issue No.1 in the Negative, issue No.2 in the Negative and issue No.3 in the Affirmative.

.19. Issue No.4 : The plaintiff suit is brought for partition of his possession in respect of suit schedule property claiming upon 4/6th share is not maintainable as partial partition is not permissible. For foregoing reasons, the suit of the plaintiff fails. In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.