Case Note & Summary
This is a second appeal arising from a partition suit. The appellants, legal representatives of the original plaintiff Shankar Ganpati Jagtap, challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court which had dismissed the suit for partition. The suit was filed seeking partition of joint family properties. The courts below had recorded a finding that there was an oral partition in the year 1958, which the appellants contended was perverse. The High Court admitted the second appeal on April 4, 1983, noting that a point of law involving the question of partition was involved. After hearing the parties, the court framed two substantial questions of law: (1) whether the finding of oral partition of 1958 was perverse, and (2) whether the Appellate Court erred in assuming that during the lifetime of Ganpati, the Defendant No.1 must have acted as Karta or Manager of the joint family. The court exercised its power under the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to frame these questions. The judgment does not provide the final decision or detailed analysis, but the framing of these questions indicates that the court found merit in the appeal and intended to examine the correctness of the lower courts' findings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court framed substantial questions of law under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC after hearing parties, regarding perversity of finding on oral partition and assumption of Karta/Manager status. (Paras 1-2) B) Hindu Law - Partition - Oral Partition - Perverse Finding - The court examined whether the finding of oral partition in 1958 was perverse and whether the Appellate Court erred in assuming that during Ganpati's lifetime, Defendant No.1 acted as Karta or Manager of the joint family. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the finding of oral partition in 1958 recorded by the courts below is perverse, and whether the Appellate Court erred in assuming that during the lifetime of Ganpati, the Defendant No.1 must have acted as Karta or Manager of the joint family.
Final Decision
The court framed substantial questions of law and the judgment does not contain the final decision on the appeal. The case was heard and the court framed questions under proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 100 CPC.
Law Points
- Perverse finding
- oral partition
- joint family
- Karta
- manager
- substantial question of law
- Section 100 CPC
- partition suit
