TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal for specific property allocation in partition suit based on investments, upholding equity principles and legal provisions.</h1> <h3>G. Krishnamoorthy Versus Sukumar, Mahesh Kumar (minor), Arun Kumar (minor), minors rep. by their brother, Munirathinammal and Palani Babu</h3> G. Krishnamoorthy Versus Sukumar, Mahesh Kumar (minor), Arun Kumar (minor), minors rep. by their brother, Munirathinammal and Palani Babu - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against final decree in partition suit.2. Claim for specific property allocation.3. Validity of appellant's claim as purchaser pendente lite.4. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.5. Equity considerations in property disputes.Analysis:1. Appeal against Final Decree:The appeal arose from a final decree in a partition suit where the respondents claimed a share in properties against other parties. The preliminary decree was passed earlier, and after the death of one respondent, the shares were adjusted accordingly. The final decree was based on the Advocate-Commissioner's report, allocating specific properties to each party.2. Claim for Specific Property Allocation:The main dispute revolved around Item No. 6 of the property schedule. The appellant, a third party purchaser, sought allocation of this property based on investments made in construction. However, the court noted the statutory restrictions on alienation during litigation under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.3. Validity of Appellant's Claim:The appellant, as a purchaser pendente lite, was not automatically entitled to equity in property allocation. The court emphasized that the appellant's actions, such as constructing on the site during litigation, did not support a claim for specific property allotment.4. Interpretation of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:Section 52 prohibits parties from transferring properties under dispute without court permission to safeguard other parties' rights. The court highlighted that the intention behind this provision is to prevent parties from acting against the interests of others involved in the litigation.5. Equity Considerations in Property Disputes:The court rejected the appellant's argument for equity based on construction investments. Emphasizing the need to prevent collusion between parties and transferees during litigation, the court upheld the final decree, denying the appellant's claim for specific property allocation.In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal but allowed the appellant to purchase peace by paying the value of the land in question within a specified period. The judgment underscored the importance of legal restrictions on property transactions during litigation and the need to uphold fairness and prevent prejudice in partition suits.
TaxTMI 