TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 permits adding Ambattur Estate property in partition suit schedule, justifies delay in amendment application, rules Benami Act not applicable.</h1> The court allowed the inclusion of Ambattur Estate property in the suit schedule for partition to prevent partial partition. The delay in filing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Inclusion of Ambattur Estate property in the suit schedule for partition.2. Delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint.3. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.Summary:Inclusion of Ambattur Estate property in the suit schedule for partition:The appellant filed a Civil Suit in C.S.No.469 of 2008 for partition of a residential property. During the trial, the appellant sought to include Ambattur Estate property in the suit schedule, which was initially excluded due to a Will executed by the appellant's father. The first respondent opposed this inclusion, arguing that the property was already subject to another suit in C.S.No.1079 of 2009. The court found that all properties available for partition should be included in the suit to avoid partial partition and allowed the inclusion of Ambattur Estate property.Delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint:The learned Single Judge dismissed the application for inclusion of Ambattur Estate property solely on the ground of delay. The appellant explained the delay, stating that the application was filed after the Will was contested and the Registry returned the initial amendment application. The court held that the delay was justified and that the inclusion of the property would not prejudice the respondents or delay the trial significantly.Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988:The appellant contended that the residential property was purchased by his father in the name of the first respondent, making it a joint acquisition. The first respondent argued that the property was purchased with her own funds and was not a joint family property. The court noted that the issues related to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, were not relevant to the inclusion of Ambattur Estate property, as there was no dispute regarding its partition.Conclusion:The court set aside the order dated 13 September 2012 in Application No.3953 of 2012, allowing the inclusion of Ambattur Estate property in the suit schedule for partition. The Original Side Appeal was allowed, and the connected MP was closed with no costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
