Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15 (a). Sri.M.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for Sri Parashuram R. Hattarkihal for respondent Nos.1, 2(a) to (c), and 3 to 5, submits that the present appeal is by defendant No.14, who is said to have purchased an extent of 20 guntas in Survey No.44 on 21.03.2000 from T.Narayana who in turn had purchased the property from his previous owner, Venkatamma, wife of Rama Bhovi. It is also submitted that the property has been subsequently sold on 21.04.2004 in favour of M/s. Cessana Garden Developers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.27 herein). In light of the above, it is contended that the claim for partition is only between two branches viz., the branch representing the interest of Rama Bhovi who are represented by defendant Nos.1 to 6 and 8 and the other branch of Venkataswamy who is represented by the plaintiffs who would share the property in equal proportion. It is submitted that defendant No.14 (appellant) would not in any way be prejudiced by the preliminary decree as regards the claim of 20 guntas as legal rights were derived through Venkatamma wife of Rama Bhovi which could be adjusted and satisfied during an equitable set off of the said property to the half share of his vendor i.e., Rama Bhovi's branch.

(iii) In a suit for partition, while considering quantification of share and also while considering equitable set-off of the sale deeds of the purchasers towards the share of the vendor coparceners, the Court necessarily is called upon to consider the extent of land purchased, chronology of sale transactions, as well as the total extent of land sold to various purchasers vis-à-

vis which would fall to the share of the respective coparcener. While recording a conclusive finding as stated above, sale transactions for legal necessity by the Kartha and sale transactions beyond the period of limitation are necessarily to be excluded and it is only with respect to the remaining portion of land which would fall to coparcener's share that the question of equitable set-off, of the land sold by the coparceners is required to be considered. In the event that, the sum total of parcels of land sold exceed the share of the coparcener, the equitable set-off is to be effected as per chronology of sale transactions and in case the latter transactions have resulted in alienation of land to an extent greater than the share of the coparceners, such alienations cannot be a subject matter of equitable set- off. For such an exercise, examining the validity of the sale deeds qua limitation is a pre-condition and in the present case the question of limitation is to be determined vis-à-vis the sale transactions that have been made by the members of Rama Bhovi's branch. Hence, framing of an issue as regards limitation qua the sale deeds executed by Rama Bhovi's branch was necessary.

18. Re. Point No.2:

The contention of non-arraying of necessary party, Veeragandham Bramhayya (who had acquired right in respect of 1 acre and 19 guntas in the suit schedule property by virtue of a deed of exchange as per Exhibit- P.27 on 05.03.2001, admittedly prior to institution of the suit) having been brought to the notice of this Court by defendant No.14 (appellant) is to be taken note of and requires consideration, even though defendant No.14 might have nothing to do with Veeragandham Bramhayya. This is more so in the light of the declaration in the case of Dhanalakshmi and Others V. P. Mohan And Others reported in 2007 10 SCC 719 wherein the Apex Court had held that purchasers of undivided shares of the coparceners were entitled to come on record in preliminary decree proceedings so that they may claim an equitable set off in the final decree proceedings as regards their purchase transaction. Hence, the plaintiffs' omission to array purchasers of undivided share prior to institution of the suit necessitates reconsideration of the matter after affording an opportunity to the purchasers.