SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL 5053/2009
R.MAHALAKSHMI VS A.V.ANANTHARAMAN AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGEMENT 03.09.2009
JUSTICE S.B.SINHA AND JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA.
(On the question of whether partial partition of properties is valid)
Article by BL bellielogo@gmail.com
Facts of the case.
R.Mahalakshmi and A.V.Anantharaman are daughter and son respectively of one A.V.Venkataraman.
On 27.04.1954, certain ancestral properties were partitioned between A.V.Venkataraman and his brother. In the said partition, apart from the suit property, father and mother of parties were allotted plots No.2 and 3 in the deed of partition.
A.V.Venkataraman died intestate (without writing a will) in the year 1961. His wife Smt. Rathna died in the year 1996.
R.Mahalakshmi sent a legal notice to the respondents on 8.6.1998 claiming partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/5th share in the above said properties. The dispute was not resolved among them. Hence A.V.Anantharaman filed a suit. In the suit R.Mahalakshmi and three others were the respondents
In the suit the contention of R. Mahalakshmi is ;
i. That some of the neighbors have encroached upon the land and, therefore, the plaintiff viz A.V.Anantharaman should also seek their eviction.
ii. that suit is bad for partial partition as plaintiff has not included otherproperties of her father and mother, that is – 1) plot No.3 of 185 Adyarthankal in father’s name 2) plot No.2 of 195 Adyarthankal in the mother’s name and
iii. Death cum service benefits of father should also be partitioned.
iv. That she has spent considerable amount of money, material and labour for the protection, upkeep and improvements of the suit property and, therefore, she is entitled to be reimbursed to that extent.
The trial court passed a preliminary decree, allotting some share to the al the litigants herein.
Rival contentions
R.Mahalakshmi filed appeal on the above decree. The grounds of appeal being
i. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition?
ii. Whether the decree and judgment of the trial court is to be confirmed or not?”
iii. Despite the registered deed of partition having been filed, the courts below committed an error in not including the other properties inherited by their father, late Shri A.V. Venkataraman.Thus, the suit filed by A.V.Anantharaman claiming partial partition was bad and deserved to be dismissed.
Findings by the courts and decision of the Supreme Court
Apart from some other legal provisions, the question is whether all the properties left behind by late A.V. Venkataraman were included in the plaint for partition or not was considered by the Honourable Court.
Supreme Court came to be conclusion Critical examination of the registered deed of partition would show that all the immovable properties inherited by late A.V. Venkataraman were not included in the suit filed by A.V.Anantharaman
That the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial court on the following grounds:
1) That all the properties that were inherited by the father of the parties by virtue of registered deed of partition dated 27.4.1954 have not been included in the partition suit.
2) The appellant herein (R.Mahalakshmi) had taken a consistent stand right from the very beginning that unless all the properties are included in the plaint, the suit would be bad and partial partition cannot be effected.