Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Hence, he contends that suit in question filed for partial partition by subsequent purchaser of a joint family property is not maintainable and he would draw the attention of Court to the findings recorded by the trial Court on additional issue Nos.1 and 2 framed in this regard which relates to maintainability of the suit and relies on the finding recorded by the trial Court while answering these two issues at paragraph 25 of the judgment assailed herein. He would also contend that there was no material on record to show what were the properties owned by the parties namely the joint family. He draws attention of the Court to Ex.D-3 namely judgment rendered by the Court of Sub Judge, Chittoor in O.S.No.1/1951 renumbered as O.S.1/1968 which was filed by late Sri.K.J.V.Naidu for partition of joint family properties and draws attention of the Court to paragraphs 2, 15, 31, 32, 73 at internal pages 5,27,47,50,51 & 108 of the said Judgment to contend that in paragraph 32, a reference is made to present suit schedule property namely entire suit schedule property i.e., Kanagundi House located at Benson Town and it cannot be read or understood as restricting to the Bungalow alone. He also submits that compromise petition referred to in O.S.No.1/1968 has no bearing or impact on the rights of 8th defendant or her mother Smt.Rani Puttamma Nagati since they were not parties to it and as such said compromise would not be binding on them. He also submits that there were other properties belonging to joint family available as on the date of filing of the present suit namely O.S.No.22/1977 and same has been reflected under Ex.P-4 since these properties being available for partition having not been included in the present suit, subsequent purchaser would not be entitled to maintain the suit for partial partition or in other words, in respect of undivided share said to have been purchased by him/her. It is also his contention that case of plaintiffs themselves is that properties are joint family properties and when there are other properties available and they having not been included in the frame of the present suit, it would not be maintainable for partial partition.

(2) Whether the Court below was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff and rejecting the claim of defendants 9 to 13 and 31 to 35 for partition and separate possession of suit schedule property?

(3) Whether the suit in question was maintainable for partial partition though the joint family possessed other properties? (4) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires to be affirmed, set aside or modified?

alienating co-parceners Are entitled in Bombay, Madras and Allahabad to sue the purchaser for partition of the alienated property without bringing a suit for general partition. It sis to be noted that in AIR 1984 AP 84 it has been held that normally a suit instituted for partition should be one for partition of the entire joint family properties and all the interested co-sharers should be impleaded. The suit of partition of specified items can only be an exception. In the present case on hand, the 1st defendant has alienated the suit land in favour of defendants-2 to 6. the 1st defendants is the member of the Joint Hindu Family. As already stated that the family has got other several lands and house properties which are the joint family properties. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel or the alieness while allotting the share to defendant-1 in the family properties equitable rights of purchasers on partition has to be considered and those rights can be considered only when all the joint family properties are included in the suit for partition. Otherwise, it would be difficult to apply principles of equitable partition. The inclusion of all the joint family properties in the instant suit for partition was necessary and without bringing all the joint family properties into the hotch-pto, the suit for partition of the shares of the members of the joint family in one property which amounts to partial partition is not maintainable. This contention in the circumstances of the case, has force and the same has to be upheld. The reason being, the present suit ahs been filed by one f the no- alienating co-parceners of the joint family property. The suit has been filed by the no- alienating co-parceners with respect to the only property which has been alienated. This is not a suit for general share of the plaintiff to be worked out if all the joint family properties had been included in the schedule then, at a partition, the share of the 1st defendant would have been worked out in order to give equitable relief to the alienees also as they have purchased the property by the 1st defendant. In that view of the matter, the present suit filed by the plaintiff without including all the joint family properties and which prejudices the rights of the alienees who have also been impleaded as parties to the suit, in the circumstances of the case, has to be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff for partial partition without including all the joint family properties is bad in law. The finding given by the trial Court with respect to the sixth issue has to be maintained and the finding given by the I Appellate Court that the suit is maintainable without including all the joint family properties cannot be held to be proper in the circumstances of the case. Hence, the finding of the A Appellate Court holding that the suit of the plaintiff for partial partition is maintainable should be set aside and the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the sixth issue that the suit is bad for non--joinder of necessary properties to be included in the suit has to be upheld.

85. In TUKARAM's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was examining the conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court that suit being maintainable for partial partition without including all the joint family properties and held as same to be bad in law and as such, the finding of first appellate Court came to be reversed.

86. Yet again, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in TUKARAM GOVIND's case, held that purchaser of an undivided share of a member of the joint family will not become a member of the joint family and he will not be entitled to be in joint possession along with other members of the joint family in respect of the joint family properties. This Court has taken note of the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of V.C.TANICHETTIYAR & ANOTHER vs DAKSHINAMURTHY MUDALIAR & OTHERS reported in AIR 1955 MADRAS 288 wherein Division Bench had come to a conclusion that purchaser cannot claim to be put in possession of any definite piece of family property and he does not acquire any interest in the property sold nor he becomes a tenant-in- common with the members of the family and he would not be entitled to joint possession. It is also held that his right would be circumscribed to seek for partition of his vendor's share and not necessarily same property. Division Bench of the Madras High Court was of the view that partition must be one for partition of entire property and not for partition of a specific item of/or interest in the family property. In other words, purchaser steps into the shoes of his vendor who is member of a joint family and when such an exercise is undertaken, he cannot claim for partial partition since his rights in the portion of the property said to have been purchased is circumscribed by the rights of the member of the joint family.