Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a partition suit filed by Kumar Vamanrao alias Alok, Kumar Vyas alias Prateek, and Aruna (plaintiffs) against Sudheendra (defendant No. 1) and others, seeking a 5/9th share in the suit schedule properties and mesne profits. The plaintiffs are the sons and wife of defendant No. 1. The suit properties included agricultural lands in Dharwad taluka. Defendant No. 7, Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai, was impleaded later as he had purchased part of the property. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 7 sold Regular Survey No. 106/2 to defendant No. 9 (Administrative Officer-Murugharajendra Vidyapeeth) via sale deed dated 25.07.2001. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court partly allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, granting a decree for partition and mesne profits. Defendant No. 7 appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's decree was correct and whether the sale to defendant No. 9 was valid. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established their right to a share in the joint family properties and that the sale by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 was void under the principle of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882) as defendant No. 9 had notice of the pending suit. The Court also upheld the grant of mesne profits from the date of suit. The appeal was partly allowed, affirming the High Court's decree with modifications regarding the sale.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Partition Suit - Joint Family Property - Plaintiffs claiming 5/9th share in suit schedule properties - Suit filed by sons and wife of defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 1 and others - High Court partly allowed plaintiffs' appeal and granted decree for partition and mesne profits - Held that plaintiffs had established their right to share in joint family properties (Paras 1-10). B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Lis Pendens - Sale of property during pendency of suit - Defendant No. 7 sold part of suit property to defendant No. 9 after being impleaded - Held that sale was void as defendant No. 9 had notice of pending suit and the principle of lis pendens applies (Paras 11-15). C) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Entitlement to mesne profits from date of suit - Plaintiffs claimed mesne profits from defendants - High Court granted mesne profits - Held that plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits from the date of filing of suit as per law (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in decreeing the suit for partition and mesne profits in favor of the plaintiffs and whether the sale of property by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 was valid despite the pendency of the suit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decree for partition and mesne profits but setting aside the sale of Regular Survey No. 106/2 by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 as void under the principle of lis pendens.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- Joint family property
- Coparcenary rights
- Mesne profits
- Notice of pending suit
- Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 52
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Order 1 Rule 10
- Order 22 Rule 4
