Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Further, Mr. Sawant submitted that it is well settled in law that a Suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Mr. Sawant submitted that therefore the present Suit cannot proceed only in respect of the properties which are within the original jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the Suit is required to be dismissed. In support of this submission, Mr. Sawant relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kenchegowda Vs. Siddegowda Alias Motegowda (1994) SCC 294.

36. Mr. Anturkar submitted that, as far as the Judgement of this Court in Shiv Bhagwan (supra) is concerned, it remains good law for the proposition that a Suit for partition of land or immovable properties is a Suit for land or immovable property. However, on the second point, regarding whether a Suit for partition can be entertained in respect of some properties alone, like the Vikhroli property in the case of Shiv Bhagwan (surpa), the position has changed in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In this context, Mr. Anturkar referred to the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Mahalakshmi Vs. A.V. Anantharaman and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 52 and Kinchegoda (surpa) which hold that a Suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Mr. Anthurkar submitted that, if the Plaintiff contends that the Suit should be limited at least to immovable properties at Malad/Dindoshi and Bandra, then, on the alternative ground that the Suit for partial partition is not maintainable, the Plaint is liable to be rejected.

SUR-REJOINDER OF THE PLAINTIFF

43. In Sur-Rejoinder, Mr. Cama submitted that it is not pleaded by the contesting Defendants that a claim for partial partition is not maintainable.

44. Further, Mr. Cama submitted that, apart from partition, the Suit involves a challenge to deal with the Dindoshi property without the consent of the Plaintiff. Therefore prayers (c), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) of the Plaint would survive.

45. As far as the Judgements in R. Mahalaxmi (supra) and Kenchegowda (supra) are concerned, Mr. Cama submitted that, in these sr.1-ia(l)-937-2025.doc matters, the Plaintiff did not seek a full partition, whilst, in the present case, the Plaintiff was seeking a full partition.

64. In my view, the answer to that question has to be in the negative as it is well settled in law that a Suit for partial partition is not maintainable. In other words, a Suit for partition of only some properties is not maintainable. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kenchegowda (supra). Paragraphs 10 and 16 of Kenchegowda (supra) read as under :

sr.1-ia(l)-937-2025.doc "10. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge went wrong in converting the suits for declaration and injunction into one for partition when all the joint family properties were not made the subject-