suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside= there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon. he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for. Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional. In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal. Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:- The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS


suit for partition - suppressing earlier partition - a conditional settlement for re-opening of earlier partition can not be considered and it can not rendered the earlier partition as not acted upon as there was overwhelm evidence for showing earlier partition was acted upon - Single judge committed error - and as such it was set aside=
there is enormous evidence on record in order to show that earlier partition of the year 1953 was given effect to and the parties to the said partition have been in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and some of the parties including the plaintiff have also disposed of the properties that fell to their share to third parties. Nextly they filed separate declarations before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal have become final and hence he finally contends that the alleged partition agreement said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in the year 1982 under Ex.A1 was not acted upon.
 he contends that the plaintiff suppressed the factum of earlier partition and in view of the overwhelming evidence in this regard, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree as prayed for.
Ex.A-1 kararnama (settlement) and since there was no coercion or compulsion, 1st defendant is bound by Ex.A-1. It is also further observed that 1st defendant had issued no notice denying Ex.A-1. The learned single Judge also found that 1st defendant in his evidence simply deposed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 have been aggrieved with the fact that the price of his land has increased and they wanted repartition and that he told that already he had partitioned his lands to his sons and if they agree, he had no objection and his sons did not agree for reopening the partition. The above factors already highlighted which were not considered by the learned single Judge, though on record, would only strengthens the contention of the 1st defendant that Ex.A-1 was acceptable subject to the approval of his sons and, therefore, he signed Ex.A-1 voluntarily. That means his signing on Ex.A-1 though voluntaily, was conditional.
In view of the above important factors, we hold that there was earlier partition in the year 1953 and Ex.A-1 settlement is not binding. Further Ex.A-1 was entered into in the year 1982 and the suit was filed in the year 1986. Considering all these factors we hold that the finding of the learned single Judge in believing Ex.A-1 by not appreciating the crucial evidence both oral and documentary on record, merits only reversal.
 Hence we answer the issue in favour of the 1st defendant - appellant.
 For the foregoing reasons, we pass the order as under:-
The impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the LPA is allowed with costs.-2015 A.P.(2002) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more