Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Venkatalakshmiamma, filed a suit for partition of 1/5th share in the suit property, claiming it was ancestral property of her father Ramaiah. The defendants included her mother (1st defendant), siblings (defendants 2-4), nephews (defendants 5-6), and subsequent purchasers (defendants 7-8). The 8th defendant alone contested, asserting that the property was sold by Ramaiah along with his son and grandsons to the 7th defendant on 30.07.1986, and later to the 8th defendant on 13.04.2007. The 8th defendant also claimed that the family properties were partitioned by a registered deed dated 30.10.2013, wherein the plaintiff received Rs.1,50,000/- towards her share. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed. In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the plaintiff had suppressed the prior partition and receipt of consideration. The court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the lower courts was upheld.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Ancestral Property - Sale by Father - The plaintiff, daughter of the 1st defendant, sought partition of 1/5th share in property claimed as ancestral. The suit property was sold by her father along with other family members in 1986, and the plaintiff had already received Rs.1,50,000/- towards her share in a registered partition deed of 2013. The courts below dismissed the suit, holding that the sale was binding and the plaintiff had no subsisting right. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Concurrent Findings - The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The plaintiff's suppression of the prior partition and receipt of consideration disentitled her to any relief. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the suit property which was sold by her father during his lifetime, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- ancestral property
- sale by father
- binding on daughter
- prior partition
- receipt of consideration
- concurrent findings
- no substantial question of law
