In a second appeal regarding a partition suit, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the challenge questioning the equity of share allotments. The court upheld the lower court's decision to allot a single, convenient parcel to the defendants as fair despite the plaintiffs possessing more valuable total land.
The second appeal is dismissed. 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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:04.02.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
S.A(MD) No.48 of 2011
Vs.
: Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying this Court to set aside the judgement and decree made in A.S.No.12 of 2010,dated 09.06.2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, confirming the final order and final decree made in I.A.No.200 of 2008 inO.S.No.177 of 2006, dated 24.11.2009, on the file ofthe Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellants : M/s.M.Dennis Joe
JUDGMENT
The appeal memorandum, copies of judgment of the lower appellate court and its decree and also the order and decree passed by the trial court and other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused.
2
defendants, whereas more convenient places to the detriment of the defendants were suggested to be allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. In the other alternate mode, instead of small portions being allotted to the defendants which would be of no use to the defendants, based on a memo given by the defendants, the learned Commissioner suggested allotment of 8.5 cents in Item No.2 alone to represent their 1/8th share in all the five items of suit properties and for the share of the plaintiffs besides the entire items 1 and 3 to 5, an extent of 18 cents in Item No.2 was also suggested to be allotted to them.
3
the courts below; that the second mode of division suggested by the Advocate Commissioner represented by Commissioner's Plan No.2 is the one more just and equitable, whereas the division suggested in Commissioner's Plan No.1 would not only be inequitable, but also will result in hardship to the defendants.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (P&A)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1 CC to M/s.M.Dennis Joe, Advocate (SR.No.4392)
S.A(MD)No.48 of 2011 04.02.2011
vsn
NSV/24.2.11/3P/4C
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allotment of shares in the partition suit by the courts below was inequitable?
Whether the division making narrow allotments to the defendants was just and equitable?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lysammal
Maria Pushpam
Soundara Raj
P.R. Shivakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
