Case Title : Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai(Dead) By LRS versus V.Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.
Case No: Civil Appeal No(S).7293-7294 of 2010
Quorum: Judge Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the case
The case involves a suit filed by Kumar Vamanrao, Kumar Vyas and Aruna against various defendants, including the parents of defendant No.1 and others. Defendant No.7 is in appeal before this court against the judgement and decree of the high court but passed away during the proceedings. His legal representatives have been brought on record later. Defendant No.8 on 11-07-2003 and defendant No.9 on 08-06-2005 were also impleaded in the suit at different times. Defendant No.9 did not appeal the High Court’s decision, leaving defendant No.7 alone . The High Court allowed defendant No.7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence. Trial Court gave authority to allocate shares in a partition suit. In the case, the plaintiffs sought oral petition by the plaint to include details about a 1965 partition, but the trial court rejected the application .The afore said order was not challenged any further. Therefore, the judgment on the 1965 partition issue became final. The specific amendments in the pleadings were sought by the plaintiff with reference to the 1965 partition but the same was rejected The High Court emphasized that evidence cannot be considered. The plaintiff attempt to introduce the 1965 partition in their replication was also deemed inadmissible.
Appellant Contentions
The appellant, defendant No.7, challenged the High Court’s judgment and decree, emphasizing common interests with defendant No.9 as a bona fide purchaser of the property. Defendant No.1’s taken stand that before the high court was a clear somersault as his counsel sought to argue relying upon the proceedings before the land tribunal which was not even his pleaded case before the trial court. The sale deed by defendant No.7 in 2001 was given to known of defendant No.1. The appellant’s counsel argued against the High Court’s decision to set aside a decree without any challenge from the involved parties. It was also mentioned that defendant No.7 sold property to defendant No.9 to protect his interests.
Respondent Contentions
The respondents argued that the High Court correctly relied on the 1965 partition, but raised regarding 1984 partition and exclusively fallen to the share in the family partition effected in them. They had convinced to deny rightful claim to the plaintiffs. Trail court passed the interim order that the appellant defendant no 7 in favor of defendant no 9 is in violation. The respondents cited relevant court judgments to support their position on evidence beyond pleadings and the validity of the sale deed.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The court analyzed that defendant no 7 has challenged the judgement and decree of the high court before the trial court. The trial court partly allowed the plaintiff appeal. The defendant No.7 specifically raised pleas regarding the 1984 partition and property allocations, supported by a decree from a Civil Court. The Court noted the rejection of the amendment application related to a 1965 partition, emphasizing that what was not allowed directly cannot be permitted indirectly. The High Court’s decision to allow defendant No.7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence was given, affirming the Trial Court’s authority in partition suits. The sale deed executed by the appellant in favor of defendant no 9 .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 Years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category Of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, Best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement Analysis Written by – K. Immey Grace
