Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Partition Dispute — Counsel's Statement Binding on Parties. The court found that the statement made by the counsel was binding on the defendants, and they could not retract their earlier concession regarding the partition of properties.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by the first respondent concerning joint family properties. The appellants, members of the same family, contested the suit after a statement made by their counsel in 1999, which conceded to the plaintiff's share in all properties. The counsel's statement was recorded in the presence of the defendants, who later sought to retract it after the death of one of the defendants. The court noted that the defendants had not filed their written statement during the lifetime of the deceased, indicating their acceptance of the plaintiff's claims. The appellants argued that the counsel had misunderstood their instructions, but the court found no merit in this claim, stating that the statement made was binding. The appeal was dismissed on both merits and procedural grounds, with costs awarded to the respondents. The court reiterated that concessions made by counsel, especially in the presence of clients, are binding and can lead to a decree based on such admissions.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Counsel's Statement - Binding Nature - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXII, Rule 6 - The court held that a statement made by a counsel in the presence of the parties is binding, and the defendants could not retract their earlier concession regarding the partition of properties. The court emphasized that the parties had knowledge of the statement and acted upon it, thus dismissing the appeal (Paras 10-16).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the statement made by the counsel on behalf of the defendants was binding and whether the properties were subject to partition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the binding nature of the counsel's statement made in court regarding the partition of properties. The court held that the appellants could not retract their earlier concession and that the properties were subject to partition as per the earlier orders.

Law Points

  • Effect of counsel's statement
  • partition of joint family property
  • binding nature of concessions
  • Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2009 LawText (SC) (02) 326

Civil Appeal No.1185 of 2009

2009-02-25

S.B. Sinha, V. S. Sirpurkar

Munish Tyagi, Sunil Gupta

Saroj Anand & Ors.

Prahlad Rai Anand & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Partition suit concerning joint family properties.

Remedy Sought

Partition of properties as claimed by the plaintiff.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the binding nature of a counsel's statement made in court.

Previous Decisions

The Single Judge dismissed the application for modification of the earlier order, which was upheld by the Division Bench.

Issues

Whether the statement made by the counsel was binding on the defendants. Whether the properties were subject to partition or sale.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants contended that the counsel had no specific instructions and thus could not make a binding concession. The respondents argued that the appellants changed their stance only after the death of the original defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

A counsel's statement made in court, especially in the presence of clients, is binding and can lead to a decree based on such admissions.

Judgment Excerpts

It is stated by the counsel for the defendants that the defendants do not dispute the share of the plaintiff in respect of all the properties. Counsels act on instructions of their clients. A decree can be passed on the basis of a concession of the parties. It is too late in the day to allow the parties to take a stand contra.

Procedural History

The matter originated from a partition suit filed in 1999, with various proceedings and applications filed thereafter, culminating in the dismissal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XII Rule 3, Order XXII Rule 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Tax Deductions for Foreign Employment. The court affirmed that remuneration received by a consultant from a foreign employer qualifies for deductions under Section 80 RRA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Promotion and Seniority Dispute — Seniority in promotional cadre must follow feeder cadre seniority.