When the plaintiff himself relinquished his right infavour of his mother, he can not ask for partition and declaration of sale deeds made by her. Suit for Declaration and partition 1) For a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are the family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 and the plaintiff is entitled for � share in the plaint schedule properties. 2) For a further declaration that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1985 is a sham and void document incorporating false recitals and the rank forged document and not binding over to the plaintiff. 3) To further declare that the alleged sale deeds dated 4.1.1983 and 5.2.1983 are sham and void documents and not binding over to the plaintiff. 4) For a direction for partition of the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bound and also allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. 5) Refer the preliminary decree to the Dy. Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri under Section 54 C.P.C. for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and also allotment of share to the plaintiff. 6) Allot � share to the plaintiff in plaint �C�, �D� and �E� schedule properties and delivery of the same to the plaintiff through the process of the court. 7) For a direction to an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 and 18 of C.P.C., 1908. 8) To render accounts. 9) Award cost of the suit and grant such other and further suitable reliefs be granted in favour of the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.= plaintiff himself by registered release deed dated 10.02.1960 has released all his rights in the Schedule �A� and �B� properties and other properties in favour of his mother. After execution of the release deed by which relinquishing all his rights in favour of the mother, the right of the plaintiff, which he would have got on the basis of the partition as observed by the High Court, shall not continue with him and shall vest in the mother and thereafter it was the mother who became the owner of the property. The fact that on 26.05.1977 the plaintiff himself purchased property bearing Survey No. 106/1 from the mother itself makes it clear that it was the mother who was the owner of the property. Defendant No. 1 has also, by two sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983, purchased the property from the mother on a valuable consideration.The sale deeds have not been held to be invalid on any reason. The plaintiff having relinquished his land by virtue of release deed, the High Court committed an error in holding that he shall be entitled to 1/6 share in the Schedule �A� and �B� properties. With regard to other Schedule �C� to �E� properties, the Will was executed by the mother on 15.07.1985. The High Court has not returned any finding that the Will was not valid. There being Will executed by Shanthaveeramma with regard to Schedule �C� to �E� properties, the beneficiaries under Will shall take their right as per the Will.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No(s). 414/2008 C.V.YOGENDRANATH Appellant(s) VERSUS C.V.PALAKSHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Notice has been issued to the all the respondents but no one is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10… Read More When the plaintiff himself relinquished his right infavour of his mother, he can not ask for partition and declaration of sale deeds made by her. Suit for Declaration and partition 1) For a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are the family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 and the plaintiff is entitled for � share in the plaint schedule properties. 2) For a further declaration that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1985 is a sham and void document incorporating false recitals and the rank forged document and not binding over to the plaintiff. 3) To further declare that the alleged sale deeds dated 4.1.1983 and 5.2.1983 are sham and void documents and not binding over to the plaintiff. 4) For a direction for partition of the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bound and also allotment of one such share to the plaintiff. 5) Refer the preliminary decree to the Dy. Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri under Section 54 C.P.C. for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and also allotment of share to the plaintiff. 6) Allot � share to the plaintiff in plaint �C�, �D� and �E� schedule properties and delivery of the same to the plaintiff through the process of the court. 7) For a direction to an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 and 18 of C.P.C., 1908. 8) To render accounts. 9) Award cost of the suit and grant such other and further suitable reliefs be granted in favour of the plaintiff under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.= plaintiff himself by registered release deed dated 10.02.1960 has released all his rights in the Schedule �A� and �B� properties and other properties in favour of his mother. After execution of the release deed by which relinquishing all his rights in favour of the mother, the right of the plaintiff, which he would have got on the basis of the partition as observed by the High Court, shall not continue with him and shall vest in the mother and thereafter it was the mother who became the owner of the property. The fact that on 26.05.1977 the plaintiff himself purchased property bearing Survey No. 106/1 from the mother itself makes it clear that it was the mother who was the owner of the property. Defendant No. 1 has also, by two sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983, purchased the property from the mother on a valuable consideration.The sale deeds have not been held to be invalid on any reason. The plaintiff having relinquished his land by virtue of release deed, the High Court committed an error in holding that he shall be entitled to 1/6 share in the Schedule �A� and �B� properties. With regard to other Schedule �C� to �E� properties, the Will was executed by the mother on 15.07.1985. The High Court has not returned any finding that the Will was not valid. There being Will executed by Shanthaveeramma with regard to Schedule �C� to �E� properties, the beneficiaries under Will shall take their right as per the Will.

Locus Standi = plaintiffs are merely agnates and the question of succession could open only after the death of defendant No.1, hence they had no locus to file the suit. Customary law whether the parties are governed by the custom in matter of alienation and what that custom”? Trial Court returned a finding that there is a custom, as pleaded, but there is one exception to the custom that a person who has rendered service to the alienater and who has some special tie with him or has associated with him in the management of the property, alienation to him is permissible. the Trial Court further returned a finding that defendant No.2 was residing with defendant No.1 and because of that both had special tie with each other, hence exception to the custom was applicable, and the suit was dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4688 OF 2009 BHAGWANTI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ARJAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 29.09.2005 by which the High Court has dismissed the R.S.A. No.2258 of… Read More Locus Standi = plaintiffs are merely agnates and the question of succession could open only after the death of defendant No.1, hence they had no locus to file the suit. Customary law whether the parties are governed by the custom in matter of alienation and what that custom”? Trial Court returned a finding that there is a custom, as pleaded, but there is one exception to the custom that a person who has rendered service to the alienater and who has some special tie with him or has associated with him in the management of the property, alienation to him is permissible. the Trial Court further returned a finding that defendant No.2 was residing with defendant No.1 and because of that both had special tie with each other, hence exception to the custom was applicable, and the suit was dismissed.

Partition suit is barred by limitation filed by erstwhile minor , 12 years after becoming major against the purchaser =The suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5 share was filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in respect of suit Properties. – The present appeal, however, is filed by the purchaser of property at Item No.6 in schedule of properties. -The appellant No.1 (defendant No. 8) had purchased the stated property from defendant Nos.1 and 4, brother and mother respectively of the plaintiff. The sale deed records that the property was sold for legal necessity of the family. Admittedly,respondent No.1 became major in 1981 but the suit came to be filed only in the year 1994.- The Trial Court opined that the suit in reference to property at Item No. 6 in respect of which the present appeal has been filed, was bared by limitation. – Additionally, the Trial Court opined that no relief had been claimed by the plaintiff to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants as illegal, void or not binding on the plaintiff. On that basis, the relief claimed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) came to be rejected by the Trial Court. – The High Court proceeded on the assumption that the property became available for partition by applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 by declaring that she was entitled to half share in all the scheduled properties. Apex court held that the High Court and the relevant material on record, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court at least in respect of the suit property described as Item No.6 in the schedule of properties which was purchased by the appellants on 10.06.1981 by a registered sale deed and which sale deed has not been challenged. The suit came to be filed almost after a gap of 12 years therefrom and more so after 13 years from respondent No.1 (plaintiff) attaining majority in 1981. In such a situation, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as the property already stood transferred and more so in light of the just finding recorded by the Trial Court that the transfer of the subject property in favour of the appellants was for legal necessity of the family, which fact has been mentioned in the registered sale deed itself and had remained unchallenged.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9984 OF 2011 ASHOKA & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS M.C. SUJATA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Karnataka… Read More Partition suit is barred by limitation filed by erstwhile minor , 12 years after becoming major against the purchaser =The suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5 share was filed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in respect of suit Properties. – The present appeal, however, is filed by the purchaser of property at Item No.6 in schedule of properties. -The appellant No.1 (defendant No. 8) had purchased the stated property from defendant Nos.1 and 4, brother and mother respectively of the plaintiff. The sale deed records that the property was sold for legal necessity of the family. Admittedly,respondent No.1 became major in 1981 but the suit came to be filed only in the year 1994.- The Trial Court opined that the suit in reference to property at Item No. 6 in respect of which the present appeal has been filed, was bared by limitation. – Additionally, the Trial Court opined that no relief had been claimed by the plaintiff to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants as illegal, void or not binding on the plaintiff. On that basis, the relief claimed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) came to be rejected by the Trial Court. – The High Court proceeded on the assumption that the property became available for partition by applying Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 by declaring that she was entitled to half share in all the scheduled properties. Apex court held that the High Court and the relevant material on record, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court at least in respect of the suit property described as Item No.6 in the schedule of properties which was purchased by the appellants on 10.06.1981 by a registered sale deed and which sale deed has not been challenged. The suit came to be filed almost after a gap of 12 years therefrom and more so after 13 years from respondent No.1 (plaintiff) attaining majority in 1981. In such a situation, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as the property already stood transferred and more so in light of the just finding recorded by the Trial Court that the transfer of the subject property in favour of the appellants was for legal necessity of the family, which fact has been mentioned in the registered sale deed itself and had remained unchallenged.

delay in filing the suit for specific performance Suit against the original defendant viz. P. Paramasiva Gounder for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.1990 and to deliver possession or in the alternative to direct the original defendant – P. Paramasiva Gounder to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,478/- (Rupees two lakhs forty seven thousand and four hundred seventy eight) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8.= High court reversed the decree and judgment of trial court and that of appellant court in second appeal= The High Court further observed that if there was a lessee, there would have been a reference of the said lessee even in the original agreement of sale and, therefore, on that ground the High Court did not accept the Exhibit A-11 endorsement as a ground for the appellant in delay in filing the suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8 having paid 90% of the amount under the agreement of sale would not have waited for six years in filing the suit for specific performance. Apex court held that Since the agreement is of the year 1990 and keeping in view the escalated price of the land and other facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand) which is inclusive of the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8. On deposit of the amount of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand), the said sale deed dated 02.03.2007 shall stand cancelled and respondents no. 1 to 5 are at liberty to register the decree and appropriate entry be made in the Registrar office in the Encumbrance Register reversing the entry of sale and also in the Revenue Register to enable respondent nos. 1 to 5 to have clear title.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11380 OF 2011 L.T.SOMASUNDARAM …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS P.SAMPOORNAM AND ORS …RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R The appellant and the proforma respondent nos. 6 to 8 have filed the suit against the original defendant viz. P. Paramasiva Gounder for specific performance of agreement… Read More delay in filing the suit for specific performance Suit against the original defendant viz. P. Paramasiva Gounder for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.1990 and to deliver possession or in the alternative to direct the original defendant – P. Paramasiva Gounder to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,478/- (Rupees two lakhs forty seven thousand and four hundred seventy eight) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8.= High court reversed the decree and judgment of trial court and that of appellant court in second appeal= The High Court further observed that if there was a lessee, there would have been a reference of the said lessee even in the original agreement of sale and, therefore, on that ground the High Court did not accept the Exhibit A-11 endorsement as a ground for the appellant in delay in filing the suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8 having paid 90% of the amount under the agreement of sale would not have waited for six years in filing the suit for specific performance. Apex court held that Since the agreement is of the year 1990 and keeping in view the escalated price of the land and other facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand) which is inclusive of the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8. On deposit of the amount of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand), the said sale deed dated 02.03.2007 shall stand cancelled and respondents no. 1 to 5 are at liberty to register the decree and appropriate entry be made in the Registrar office in the Encumbrance Register reversing the entry of sale and also in the Revenue Register to enable respondent nos. 1 to 5 to have clear title.

whether plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession in view of the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6111 OF 2009 KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) THROUGH LRS. …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS O.V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. & ORS …RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12267 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.2760 OF 2011) NAGAR COUNCIL SIRHIND …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS… Read More whether plaintiff can take the plea of adverse possession in view of the interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Mere filing of the civil suit cannot come in the way of the execution of the lawful decree in favour of the appellant which is final.= we do not see how execution of the decree for specific performance in favour of the appellant can be injuncted and stayed in view of the subsequent suit filed by Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, which suit is still pending and has not yet been decided

CA 3412/2019 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3412 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.32846 of 2016) Veena Mahajan Appellant(s) V.N. Verma and Others Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted. The appellant, Veena Mahajan, plaintiff in Civil Suit (OS) No. 553 of 1988, sought specific performance… Read More Mere filing of the civil suit cannot come in the way of the execution of the lawful decree in favour of the appellant which is final.= we do not see how execution of the decree for specific performance in favour of the appellant can be injuncted and stayed in view of the subsequent suit filed by Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, which suit is still pending and has not yet been decided

Violation of the order of injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a clear evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed the order of the court, the party cannot be punished for disobedience and sent to imprisonment. Though the appellant is said to be the father-in-law of the second respondent, no materials were placed before the court to show that he had the knowledge of the interim order dated 09.12.2004. However, the fact remains that the second respondent and the appellant are the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. The second respondent-vendor having been found not guilty of contempt of court in the revision (being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014), the appellant cannot be placed in a worse situation than his vendor.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.01.31 10:27:08 IST Reason: 2 The second respondent, Deivathal, had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 08.06.2004 in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance, being OS No. 162 of 2004 and in the said suit, interim… Read More Violation of the order of injunction is a serious matter and unless there is a clear evidence that the party has wilfully disobeyed the order of the court, the party cannot be punished for disobedience and sent to imprisonment. Though the appellant is said to be the father-in-law of the second respondent, no materials were placed before the court to show that he had the knowledge of the interim order dated 09.12.2004. However, the fact remains that the second respondent and the appellant are the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law. The second respondent-vendor having been found not guilty of contempt of court in the revision (being CRP (NPD) No. 1593 of 2014), the appellant cannot be placed in a worse situation than his vendor.