The single-judge bench held that since the appellant purchased the schedule property, the preliminary decree for partition became unnecessary. Consequently, the impugned decree was set aside and the appeal allowed.
The impugned decree set aside; appeal allowed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, to be closed; no order as to 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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
APPEAL SUIT No.697 of 2012
Dt: 17.09.2013
Between:-
Mohd.Iqbal Rahman and others
… Petitioners
and
Smt.Ahmedunnisa Begum and others
… Respondents
This Court made the following:-
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
APPEAL SUIT No.697 of 2012
ORDER:
Appellant No.4, who was impleaded by order, dated 13.09.2013, has purchased the schedule property of appellant Nos.2 and 3 as well as respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 being only a proforma party and since the schedule property vests in appellant No.4 - purchaser, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal.
Since the decree under appeal granted 1/8th share to the plaintiff and 7/8th share to defendant Nos.7 and 8, all the said property decreed now vests in appellant No.4. In view of that, the preliminary decree, which is subject matter of this appeal, and relief for partition sought for in the suit itself, is rendered unnecessary as appellant No.4 succeeds to the schedule property by acquiring the shares of plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.7 and 8.
In view of the above, the impugned decree is set aside and the appeal suit is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
September 17, 2013 LMV
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
APPEAL SUIT No.697 of 2012
Dated: September 17, 2013
LMV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal succeeds to the extent that the schedule property now vests in the appellant-purchaser.
Whether the preliminary decree for partition is rendered unnecessary due to the property vesting in the appellant.
Whether the impugned decree should be set aside given the change in property ownership.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Iqbal Rahman and others
Smt. Ahmedunnisa Begum and others
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
