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>Appellate Court Orders Fresh Trial & Allows Amendment of Plaint in Property Partition Case</h1> <h3>The Chiveettil Sekharan Nambiar and Ors. Versus Cheruvazhcheri Kishakkekkar Thechi Veettil Kummini Appissi's son Ramanunni Nambiar and Ors.</h3> The appellate court set aside the trial court's ruling and remanded the case for fresh disposal, allowing parties to amend the plaint regarding the ... - Issues:Partition of the plaint B schedule property, Property ownership dispute, Remand order justificationAnalysis:Issue 1: Partition of the plaint B schedule propertyThe suit involved a partition of the B schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed joint possession and enjoyment of the property with the defendants. The dispute arose when certain defendants allegedly sold timber trees without consent, leading to a petition and subsequent attempts to cut and sell trees. The trial court initially held that there was no evidence to show the 13th defendant held the property on behalf of the tarwad, thus ruling out partition. However, the appellate court set aside this finding and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, allowing the parties to amend the plaint.Issue 2: Property ownership disputeThe core contention revolved around whether the property in question belonged to the tarwad of the plaintiffs and defendants or if the leasehold right obtained by certain defendants was valid. The trial court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that the property belonged to the tarwad. The appellate court, however, noted that while the plaint did not specifically state the property as tarwad, the basis of the suit implied it. The supporting defendants explicitly mentioned the property as belonging to the Marumakkathaya family. The court emphasized that all parties had led evidence on this issue, and a specific issue on the property's nature was framed. The appellate court found no justification for the remand, citing Supreme Court precedents on the importance of parties fully presenting their cases during trial.Issue 3: Remand order justificationThe appellate court's decision to remand the case was challenged on the grounds that the trial court had already considered the evidence and framed relevant issues. The higher court criticized the remand order, stating that the lower appellate court failed to provide a decision on the merits of the case. It directed the lower appellate court to adjudicate on the case's substance without the need for further amendments to the plaint. The judgment highlighted the duty of the first appellate court to reach conclusions based on the evidence presented during the trial and emphasized that a remand should not be ordered merely due to perceived inadequacies in evidence presentation.In conclusion, the judgment allowed the appeal, set aside the remand order, and directed the lower appellate court to decide the case on its merits. The parties were instructed to bear their respective costs, and a date for appearance before the lower court was specified. The judgment underscored the importance of fully presenting evidence during trial and the duty of the appellate court to render decisions based on the available evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
