Gangubai Raghunath Ayare vs Gangaram Sakharam Dhuri (D) Thr. Lrs and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

17 March 2025

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 2009

Result

Disposed

Bench

Sudhanshu Dhulia, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 184 : 2025 INSC 355

Acts & Sections

CPC TP Act

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition could not have been granted, until the proper parties were impleaded in the suit; whether the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by ‘V’ was valid to the extent of his undivided share in the suit property.

Headnote

Suit – Proper parties/necessary party – Non-joinder – ‘V’ (brother of the plaintiff and the third to fifth defendants) sold ½ portion of the suit property belonging to their deceased father, to the 2nd defendant – Plaintiff inter alia sought administration of the deceased’s estate and declaration that the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant was null and void – Trial Court rejected the prayer for administration of the estate however, declared the sale void in toto and directed the 2nd defendant to handover possession of ½ portion of the suit property – Appeal filed by 2nd defendant, allowed by High Court – Challenged: Held: High Court was right in holding that when the principal prayer for administration of the estate was rejected by the Trial Court, that too as non-maintainable, any other prayer indirectly seeking partition could not have been granted, until the proper parties were impleaded in the suit – The decree of possession against the 2nd defendant was also rightly set aside by the High Court, as the said relief could not have been granted as the third to fifth defendants had not filed any suit seeking their share in the suit property, whilst the Plaintiff herself was entitled only to a 1/5th share in the suit property – On the passing away of ‘V’, during the pendency of the suit, only his wife was brought on record, whereas his sons and daughters were not impleaded in the suit by the Plaintiff – Further, ‘V’ had 1/5th undivided share in the suit property, belonging to the deceased – Thus, the sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant by ‘V’ is valid only to such extent – Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot be disturbed with her possession until the suit property is partitioned in accordance with law. [Paras 23, 24, 26]

Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel and senior counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Final Judgment and Order dated 20/21.02.20071 in First Appeal No.116 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Single Judge (as he then was) of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reversing Judgment and Decree dated 18/19.09.1987 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Suit No.2060 of 1970. 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 144 | (2007) 5 Mah LJ 136 | (2007

View Subscription Plans →