In a writ petition challenging a trial court's refusal to frame additional issues in a civil suit concerning title and partition, the High Court held there was no jurisdictional error or perversity and dismissed the petition.
No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 556 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 556 OF 2011
***
1.Heard. Respondent had filed suit for
permanent injunction and for declaration of
ownership. In it, issues about his title and
possession are already framed. Vide issue
No.2 burden is upon him to prove that because
of partition decree in R.C.S. No.54 of 1998
suit land came to share of defendant NO.5.
He has also to show that defendant No.5 sold
suit land to him by sale deed dated 18th May,
2002. The issue NO.5 requiring defendants to
prove that there was only family arrangement
and there was no partition and property is
still joint, is also framed. The petitioner/
defendant then wanted an additional issue to
be framed and the additional issue sought by
him require plaintiff to prove that partition
took place between defendant Nos.1 to 4. By
second additional issue, he wanted to contend
that the decree in R.C.S. No.54 of 1998 and
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 556 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders.
sale deed dated 18th May, 2002 are not
binding on them.
2.A cursory perusal is apparent that
issues as sought are already covered by
issues framed. The trial Court has
appreciated the controversy correctly. There
is no jurisdictional error or perversity.
Petition is rejected. No costs.
[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:25/01/2011.
ans/556
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court committed jurisdictional error or acted perversely by refusing to frame additional issues in an ongoing civil suit regarding title and partition.
Petitioner
Respondent
B.P.Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court