Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Reverses Lower Appellate Court's Dismissal for Non-Prosecution. Held that the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for default without considering the merits, and that the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable even if the plaintiff is not in joint possession.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 133
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present second appeal arises from a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the appellants (original plaintiffs) against the respondents. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The respondents appealed to the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellants challenged this dismissal in the High Court. The High Court found that the lower appellate court had erred in dismissing the appeal for default without considering the merits. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and restored the appeal to the file of the lower appellate court for fresh decision on merits. The High Court also observed that the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable even if the plaintiff is not in joint possession, as a co-owner can sue for partition without being in actual possession. The second appeal was allowed, and the lower appellate court was directed to decide the appeal afresh.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Dismissal for Default - Restoration - The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The High Court held that such dismissal is illegal and set aside the order, restoring the appeal to the file of the lower appellate court for fresh decision on merits. (Paras 1-5)

B) Hindu Law - Partition - Maintainability - Suit for Partition and Separate Possession - The suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable even if the plaintiff is not in joint possession. The court relied on the principle that a co-owner can sue for partition without being in actual possession. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits, and whether the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable when the plaintiff is not in joint possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and restored the appeal to the file of the lower appellate court for fresh decision on merits.

Law Points

  • Partition suit
  • maintainability
  • joint possession
  • non-prosecution
  • dismissal for default
  • restoration
  • substantial question of law
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 8

Second Appeal No. 0366 of 2016

0000-00-00

Smt. Sonabai Pundalik Suralkar, Smt. Dhanabai Keshav Hadap, Smt. Sarubai Mahipat Khadse

Smt. Savitribai Shivlal Chikate, Smt. Chandrabhagabai Namdeo Pawar, Narayan Jagannath Patil, Sau. Ushabai Narayan Patil, Premraj Bhagwat Shevage

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

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution in a partition suit.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought restoration of the appeal dismissed for default and decision on merits.

Filing Reason

The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession in favor of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Issues

Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits. Whether the suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable when the plaintiff is not in joint possession.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the lower appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for default without considering the merits. Respondents argued that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not in joint possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The lower appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. A suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable even if the plaintiff is not in joint possession, as a co-owner can sue for partition without being in actual possession.

Judgment Excerpts

The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The suit for partition and separate possession is maintainable even if the plaintiff is not in joint possession.

Procedural History

The trial court decreed the suit for partition and separate possession. The respondents appealed to the lower appellate court, which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellants filed the present second appeal against that dismissal.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Reverses Lower Appellate Court's Dismissal for Non-Prosecution. Held that the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal for default without considering the merits, and that the suit fo...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Succession Act Case — Appellants Granted Letters of Administration Despite Objections. Court holds that objectors failed to prove that the Will was not duly executed or that the testator lacked testamentary capaci...