PARTITION ACT
dkshankar
(Querist) 24 June 2009
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts,
Kindly let me know what is the latest position in Sec 2 of The Partition Act. what is the meaning of the term MOIETY. Also let me know where we can find latest rulings in web?
THANKS & REGARDS,
DKSHANKAR
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 27 June 2009
Moiety means a part of estate or share.It it sometimes taken as one of the two equal parts of the estate, movable or immovable. You can look into dictionary. Partition Act is still in force. I could not find latest ruling on Partition Act.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 27 June 2009
Recently i found a ruling please go through it.The ruling gives other citations referred to in the judgment It is as below.
* [BOMBAY HIGH COURT] *
*Vijay Balu Wayande
v
(1) Martand Keshav Dabhade; (2) Keru Keshav Dabhade, Since Deceased By
His Heirs, Bharati Keru Dabhade, Aarati Keru Dabhade, Suvarti Keru
Dabhade; (3) Anandibai
*
/02 Jun 2008/
*BENCH*
A. V. Mohta
*COMPARATIVE CITATIONS*
2008 (4) AllMR 783, 2008 INDLAW MUM 225
*CASES REFERRED TO*
Badri Narain Choudhary and Others v Nilratan Sarkar 1978 Indlaw SC 255
R. Ramamurthi Iyer v Raja V. Rajeswara Rao 1972 Indlaw SC 364
Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair Vs. Padmanabha Pillai & Ors. [2004 (12)
SCC 754]
*ACTS REFERRED*
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[O. 20 r. 12 (1)(c)
O. 20 r. 18
Partition Act, 1893
[s. 2
s. 3 ,
s. 4 ]
*CASE NO*
Second Appeal No. 572 of 1988
*EDITOR'S NOTE*
*Whether principle of equity should have been applied when pending
litigation for partition, defendant no.2 made construction ? - Held,
Partition Act can be made applicable when the suit was filed for
partition of the property - Provisions of Partition Act invoked in no
way can be extended to the construction made by defendant No.2 knowing
fully that the suit/litigation for partition of the respective shares in
the said open plot is pending; such construction or building, pending
the litigation for partition unless agreed by both the parties can not
claim benefit of the Partition Act, specially at the stage of execution
- Construction has been made, pending the litigation, therefore, it is
always at the risk of the party who make or continue to construct the
building; such person cannot claim equity and premium to his own wrong -
Appeal dismissed.*
*KEYWORDS*
Mesne Profits, Decree-Holder, Civil Procedure Code, Appeal dismissed,
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, Second Appeal, Municipal Corporation,
Maharashtra, LAND & PROPERTY, Partition Act, 1893
*LAWYERS*
Pai, S.V. Sadavarte, M.R.Katikar
.*JUDGMENT TEXT*
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. This is a Second Appeal filed by Original defendant No.2 against the
original plaintiffs- respondents, in whose favour by order dated 30th
April, 1985, the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur (for
short, "Executing Court") in Final Decree Application has passed the
following order.
/The application is granted.
The Suit property be partitioned through the Court Commissioner
according to the directions given in the decree and 3/4th portion of the
same be handed over to the plaintiffs-applicants by demolishing the
construction, if necessary.
No order as to costs * /.
2. The same has been confirmed by the Additional District Judge,
Kolhapur by order dated 25th October, 1988 and therefore, the present
Second Appeal.
3. By an order dated 30th November, 1988 this High Court has framed the
following question of law.
Whether the principle of equity should have been applied having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case?
4. The factual background in the matter as recorded by the Executing
Court is as under:-
The plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 931/1967 against the
Defendants for declaration that the gift deed of the suit property
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 be declared void
and not binding on the plaintiffs and also for possession of their 3/4th
share after an equitable partition, which was decreed in favour of the
Plaintiffs having ordered that:-
/"It is hereby declared that the gift-deeds, dated the 12th August, 1973
and the 4th September, 1954, executed by Keshav Ganpat in favour of
Shantabai Davane are void and not binding on the Plaintiffs. It is also
declared that the gift-deed, dated the 19th April, 1963, executed by
Keshav Ganpat in favour of Balu Laloba is void and not binding on the
Plaintiffs. It is also declared that Plaintiffs have got 3/4th share in
the suit pro
