{"id":997,"date":"2023-10-16T13:49:59","date_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=997"},"modified":"2023-10-16T13:49:59","modified_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:19:59","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-in-a-suit-for-partition-every-interested-party-is-deemed-to-be-a-plaintiff-and-the-law-does-not-bar-passing-of-numerous-preliminary-decrees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-in-a-suit-for-partition-every-interested-party-is-deemed-to-be-a-plaintiff-and-the-law-does-not-bar-passing-of-numerous-preliminary-decrees\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that in a suit for partition, every interested party is deemed to be a plaintiff, and the Law does not bar passing of numerous preliminary decrees"},"content":{"rendered":"

A. KRISHNA SHENOY <\/strong>[Petitioner(s)] Vs. <\/strong>GANGA DEVI G. & ORS. [<\/strong>Respondent(s)]<\/h2>\n

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8080\/2019<\/strong>
\n(2JB, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present special leave petition has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved over the judgment of the High Court confirming the supplementary preliminary decree granted in favour of his sisters, who have been arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2 before the court.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the supplementary preliminary decree granted in favour of respondents by the high court valid in law?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Devadutt Kamat, Sr. Adv.<\/p>\n

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the mandate of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with. Having filed a separate suit in the year 2014, the separate application is hit by Section 10 of the CPC. Both the Courts, have not taken into consideration the fact that the impleadment application filed by the contesting respondents was dismissed. Both the Courts have wrongly construed the wills relied upon by the petitioners, in disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses, who attested. In support of his contention, learned counsel has made reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Malluru Mallappa (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Kuruvathappa and Others<\/em><\/strong>, (2020) and Somakka (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) by Legal Representatives<\/em><\/strong>, (2022).<\/p>\n

Counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. E. M. S. Anam, AOR<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court dismissed the present appeal statsing that, \u201cwe find no error warranting interference. Order XLI, Rule 31 of the CPC has been complied with under the impugned order, inasmuch as adequate reasoning has been rendered. Suffice it is to state that the High Court has considered the contentions on merit and, therefore, dealt with the issues involved.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The court observed that, \u201cSection 10 of the CPC has got no application in the case on hand. Admittedly, we are dealing with a suit for partition, in which every interested party is deemed to be a plaintiff. Law does not bar passing of numerous preliminary decrees. The fact that the applicants are the sisters of the petitioner is not in dispute. In such view of the matter, they ought to have been arrayed as defendants in the main suit itself. The dismissal of the application during the final hearing proceeding has got no bearing on the application filed seeking yet another preliminary decree. Both the Courts had rightly disbelieved the unregistered wills executed in favour of the petitioner ignoring the two daughters. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error warranting interference. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A. KRISHNA SHENOY [Petitioner(s)] Vs. GANGA DEVI G. & ORS. [Respondent(s)] Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8080\/2019 (2JB, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA) Facts: The present special leave petition has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved over the judgment of the High Court confirming the supplementary […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":999,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=997"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/997\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1001,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/997\/revisions\/1001"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/999"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}