9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit property is the self-acquired property of the appellant. 2. Whether the property was purchased in the name of the appellant for the purpose of getting a quarry license from the Government. 3. Whether there was a partnership agreement between the first respondent and the appellant entered into on 03.07.1997. 4. Whether the plaintiff/first respondent is entitled to seek partition and consequently permanent injunction. Summary: Issue 1: Self-acquired Property The appellant contended that the suit properties are his self-acquired properties. The trial court, however, held that the properties were not exclusively owned by the appellant, as the first respondent had contributed towards their purchase. The High Court found no evidence to support the first respondent's claim of contribution and thus did not uphold the trial court's judgment on this issue. Issue 2: Purpose of Purchase The trial court concluded that the property was purchased in the appellant's name based on a partnership agreement to carry on a quarrying business. The High Court agreed that there was a partnership agreement but found no evidence of the first respondent's financial contribution towards the purchase of the property. Issue 3: Partnership Agreement The existence of a partnership agreement was confirmed by both the written statement and the evidence provided. The High Court acknowledged the partnership but noted that the first respondent failed to prove his financial contribution to the purchase of the property. Issue 4: Entitlement to Partition and Injunction The trial court granted the relief of partition based on the partnership agreement. However, the High Court found that the first respondent did not substantiate his claim of financial contribution towards the purchase of the property. Consequently, the High Court held that the suit for partition was misconceived and set aside the trial court's judgment on this issue. Additional Points: - The appellant's request to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was denied by the High Court, citing insufficient grounds and the absence of evidence supporting the first respondent's claims. - The High Court emphasized that the mere existence of a partnership did not entitle the first respondent to a division of the suit properties without proof of financial contribution. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the trial court's judgment regarding the partition of the suit properties. The plaintiff/first respondent's claim for partition was deemed misconceived due to the lack of evidence supporting his financial contribution. The appeal was allowed in part, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
