Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)

Gajara Vishnu Gosavi vs Prakash Nanasaheb Kamble & Ors on 16 September, 2009

executed by Awadhesh Singh (plaintiff) in favour of Shyamjhari Devi. In all these sale deeds the plaintiff has admitted the compromise of Partition Suit No. 38/66 and has stated that on that basis he got the separate lands out of that he is selling these lands. No doubt, undivided share of coparcener can be a subject matter of sale, but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds. In the plaint of this partition suit, the plaintiff has executed the lands covered in those sale deeds and has not made purchasers as party Patna High Court FA No.207 of 2012 dt.02-08-2017 10 and in recitals it is mentioned that possession has already been handed over. Thus, it clearly proves partition. Recitals of these sale deeds prove partition. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment reported in 2009 (4) PLJR Supreme Court page 225 (para 11 to 13) in the matter of Gajara Vishnu Gosavi....Appellant vs. Prakash Nanasahdev Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents. Here possession has been handed over which is not possible in undivided share of a coparcener. Here share has not been transferred rather separate lands with boundary have been transferred. Mutual transaction between two members is strong evidence of separation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

M.L. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) By Lrs. And ... vs M.L. Nagappa Setty (Dead) By Lrs. And ... on 23 April, 2002

Shakuntla Devi & Ors. Vs. Hardeo Rai (supra) and M.L. Subbaraya Setty & Ors. Vs. M.L. Nagappa Setty and ors. (Supra). It is well proved that there is no unity of title and possession over the suit land between the plaintiff and defendants and there was previous partition. Thus, point no. 1 is decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 56 - U C Banerjee - Full Document
1