Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Whether the defendants further proves that the suit is not maintainable for partial partition and also on the ground that the defendant filed a comprehensive suit for partition in O.S.No.1025/1995?

5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

6. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the suit is frivolous and vexatious?

7. What order or decree?

3.3. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined himself as DW.1 and got marked document at Ex.D1.

3.4. The trial Court, after recording the evidence and considering the material on record held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule property belongs to defendant No.1 and further held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for half share in the suit property and also held that defendant had proved that the partition in respect of the suit schedule property has not taken place with him and his brother. Further held that the defendant proved that the suit is not maintainable for partial partition and also on the ground that the defendant filed comprehensive suit for partition in O.S.No.1025/1995.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff.

7. The following points arise for my consideration:

(1) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit is not maintainable for partial partition and also on the ground that the defendant No.1 has filed comprehensive suit for partition in O.S.No.1025/1995? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary and erroneous and needs interference by this Court? (3) What order or decree?

10. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, I answer point No.1 in negative holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary properties.

11. Point No.2: The Trial Court considering the evidence on record that the plaintiff has failed to include the other 3 properties, has rightly held that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable and Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the negative.