Skip to main content

Re-opening of Partition

 Re-opening of Partition 


By Shweta Nair



Partition is the international severance of coparcenary property by members of a joint family. According to the Mitakshara Law, Partition is the adjustment into definite shares, of varied rights of various members accumulating to the whole of the family property. 


Partition is a subject of individual choice, and decreases the members to the position of occupants in common, needing only a certain, unequivocal aim on the part of a member to detach and isolate and relish his share in total discreteness. (Girja Bai v. Sadashiv, 43 I.A. 151) 


The rule is that a partition once created is not possible to be re-opened. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule which are given below, 


  1. A son begotten though not born before partition, can reopen it, if a share has not been reserved for him. 


  1. A son begotten as well as born after partition, can demand a reopening of partition, if his father, though entitled to take a share, has not reserved a share for himself. 


  1. An ineligible coparcener can, on removal of the ineligibility, re-open the partition.


  1. A partition can be re-opened by a minor on reaching maturity, if the partition created during his minority was partial or detrimental to his interest. (This rule however does not apply to partition by decree of a Court, if the minor was properly represented before the Court.) 

In Ratnam Chettiar v. Kuppuswami Chettiar (A.I.R. 1976 S.C.I.), the Supreme Court declared that if a partition was partial or detrimental to the interests of the minor coparcener, such a partition could be re-opened at his insistence, even though there was no fraud or mis-representation or undue influence. The Court also declared that the whole partition is not required to be re-opened if it was partial or detrimental in regard to a distinct and discrete part of the scheme of partition. These principles were accepted and reiterated by the Court in a later case, Sukhrani v. Hari Shanker, 1979 2 S.C.C. 463. 


  1. If a coparcener has deceptively obtained a biased benefit in the division, or if the property fixed to a coparcener was unfamiliar person’s property, or was subject to a variation, and such a coparcener cannot be compensated otherwise, the partition may be re-opened for re-adjustment of the shares. 


  1. A son adopted by a widow of a departed coparcener is eligible to re-open a partition effected by the coparceners who are alive after his adoptive father’s death and prior to his own adoption. 


  1. Property of which an unequal distribution has been made contrary to law must be redistributed and for this purpose, a partition may be reopened. 


  1. If, through fault, some property is incorrectly fixed to a coparcener, which did not really belong to the family, the partition can be re-opened. 


  1. An absent or lost coparcener can, on his arrival, re-open the partition, if his share was not reserved for him or made over to his wife or issue. 

It may be noted that just re-adjustment of property is not re-opening of a partition. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more