Petition challenged an order rejecting amendment of plaint in a partition suit appeal. The court held that in a partition suit or appeal it is the court's duty to determine parties' shares per law regardless of rival claims, and declined to entertain the petition, dismissing it.
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.
2024:BHC-NAG:11088 1 wp 5340.24.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.5340/2024 (Ankush and another V Namdeo and others)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
CORAM : N.R. Borkar, J. DATE : 09-09-2024.
. This petition takes exception to the order
dated 20-06-2024 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Amravati (below Exhibit-64) in Regular Civil Appeal No.170/2014.
ii. The above appeal arises out of the suit filed by the petitioners for partition.
iii. By the order impugned, the learned District Judge has rejected the application filed by the present
petitioners for amendment of the plaint.
iv. The proposed amendment reads thus :
" PROPOSED AMENDMENT
i) Insert the Following para 10F
2 wp 5340.24.odt
| Name | Married on/died on | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff No.1 | Married in 1987 | 16.66% |
| Plaintiff No.2 | Married in 1922 | 16.66% |
| Plaintiff No.3 | Married in 1994 | 16.66% |
| _Defendant No.2 _ | Married in 1962 | 16.66% |
| _Defendant No.3 _ | Married in 1981 | 16.66% |
| _Defendant No.4 _ | Married in 1992 | 16.66% |
| Total | 100% |
That suit properties are the ancestral joint Hindu family coparcenary property and the shares of the plaintiffs and defendants no.2 to 4 in the suit properties are as mentioned above."
v. In a suit for partition or an appeal arising out of such suit, irrespective of rival claims of the parties about the share in the suit properties, it is the duty of the Court to determine the shares of the parties in accordance with the law. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition against the order impugned. The petition is dismissed.
( N.R. Borkar, J. )
Deshmukh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition lies against rejection of an application for amendment of plaint in a partition appeal, given the court's duty to determine shares.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh SharmaRelied on
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma AIR 2020 SC 3717 · Who else cites this
Ankush
Namdeo
N.R. Borkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
