Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)The Partition Act, 1893
S. C. Bhalla vs Smt. Usha And Others on 4 October, 2012
One was filed by defendant no.15 to 19 titled as Kailash Chand Gupta
and others v. Rajinder Kaur and others bearing No.850 dated 17.11.2012
and other appeal was filed by S.C.Bhalla bearing No.857 dated 20.11.2012
titled as S.C. Bhalla vs. Usha and others. The two connected appeals were
disposed of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide
judgment dated 14.10.2015, whereby appeal filed by Kailash Chand Gupta
and others was allowed and appeal filed by S.C.Bhalla was dismissed.
Against the said judgment, plaintiff has filed appeal against the order of the
learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh allowing the appeal of
Kailash Chand Gupta and others and S.C.Bhalla has filed appeal against the
judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby his first
appeal was dismissed.
Subba Reddiar vs Hazra Bibi on 8 February, 1972
Learned counsel has also referred to the authority in Subba
Reddiar vs. Hazra Bibi, 1973 AIR (Madras) 237, wherein the Division
Bench of Madras High Court held that in suit for partition plaintiff co-sharer
will be entitled to, and the Court will have ample jurisdiction to award
mesne profits or rendition of accounts of the income of the plaintiff's share
of the properties right upto the moment of the delivery of possession.
Babburu Basavayya And Ors. vs Babburu Guravayya And Anr. on 2 February, 1951
Further reliance is placed on the Full Bench authority of
Madras High Court in Babburu Basavayya and others vs. Babburu
Guravayya and another, 1951 AIR (Madras) 938. Relevant extract from the
said judgment is as under:-
Section 106 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
M.L. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) By Lrs. And ... vs M.L. Nagappa Setty (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 23 April, 2002
Further reliance is placed on the authority of Apex Court in
M.L.Subbaraya Setty and others vs. M.L.Nagappa Setty and others, 2002
AIR (SC) 2066, wherein parties in possession were liable to give accounts
for the rents, income, profits and dividends in respect of joint family
property to others from 11.7.1940 up to passing of the final decree.
Sita Kashyap & Anothers vs Harbans Kashyap And Others on 18 March, 2011
Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.6076-2015 has
vehemently contended that since other shareholders were in possession of
share more than their share, therefore, they are liable for rendition of
accounts and the judgment passed by the trial Court was correct and the
lower appellate Court erred in reversing the findings qua defendant nos.15
9 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2018 07:13:45 :::
RSA- 6076-2015 (O&M) 10
to 19. Learned counsel has referred to the authority of Delhi High Court in
Sita Kashyap and another vs. Harbans Kashyap and others, 2012(7) RCR
(Civil) 3050, wherein it was held that when one of the co-owners has been
deriving some profit by way of rent etc. or is in possession of a portion
disproportionate to his share in the property subject matter of the partition,
it becomes duty of the Court to adjust the equities by directing appropriate
division of profits, if any, earned from the property. Reliance has been
placed on the following observations of Delhi High Court:-
Tarsem Singh & Ors vs Gurdeep Singh & Anr on 14 January, 2015
Findings of the lower
16 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09-04-2018 07:13:45 :::
RSA- 6076-2015 (O&M) 17
Court shows that it was found that after vacation of the property by the
tenant, defendant no.3(a) is in self occupation of the property. Learned
counsel for S.C.Bhalla has vehemently argued that rights of the co-sharers
are well defined. Every co-sharer has a right in every inch of joint land.
For this purpose, he has relied upon the authorities in Tarsem Singh vs.
Gurdeep Singh, 2016(1) Civil Court Cases 642 (P&H), Pritpal Singh and
others vs. Hari Singh and others, 2017(2) PLR 374, Lekh Ram and others
vs. Prabhu Dayal and others. He has also contended that a co-owner in joint
land has a right to sell his share subject to the right of the other co-owners
for partition.