Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Written Arguments in Partition Suit on Behalf of Purchaser

Written Arguments in Partition Suit on Behalf of Purchaser

Ratings: (0)|Views: 124 |Likes:
Partition effected cannot be re-opened unless it is shown it is obtained by fraud coercion misrepresentation and undue influence. Partition deed which was mutually acted upon cannot be questioned for its non-registration.
Partition effected cannot be re-opened unless it is shown it is obtained by fraud coercion misrepresentation and undue influence. Partition deed which was mutually acted upon cannot be questioned for its non-registration.

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE COURT OF 3
RD
 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMKUR
RA 315/2007 APPELLANT
 
VS
 
RESPONDENT
N.ARUNA & Anr GANGAMMA & ORS
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:- SYNOPSIS:-
 The following brief points of arguments are raised in this arguments with clear facts, law and applicable citations. 1.
 
As on the date of filing of suit (07-01-1998) plaintiff was admittedly a married women having married before 30-07-1994, as such she is not a co-parcener to seek partition from ancestral property or challenge alienations made by her father. (Smt. Nanjamma And Another vs State Of Karnataka And Others (DB) ILR 1999 KAR 1094, 1999 (2) KarLJ 109) 2.
 
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on September 9, 2005. For the first time on 09-09-2005 plaintiff became co-parcener by birth. But such right was subjected to the condition that all alienations made before 20-12-2004 cannot be challenged by women co-parcener.
 
(Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. vs Chakiri Yanadi & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 169
 – 
 2011 (9) SCC 788,) 3.
 
As on the date of sale of properties (sold by D-1 to D-6 and D-6 to D-7) in 13-12-1996, & 20-09-1997, plaintiff is neither a co-parcener nor having any successor rights due to her father a sole co-parcener is alive on the date of that sale. Instant suit is filed when seller was alive.
 
 
4.
 
Whatever may be the family arrangement legally plaintiff has no rights to challenge alienations made by her father in whatever capacity as on the date of suit or subsequent upto the date of 09-09-2005. 5.
 
Estoppel:- When plaintiff by her declaration, act or omission caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon that belief, (admittedly when Form 21 statutory notice is being signed by plaintiff during EX D34 and EX D28) neither she nor her representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between herself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing. 6.
 
Presumption under section 133 of Karnataka land revenue act and probability of factual interpretations regarding EX D34
,(Mutation after palupatti)
, EX D19
(Appeal of plaintiff dismissed by AC court regarding challenge as to legality in making entry in RTC regarding sale to D-6)
 & EX D28
(Tahsildar orders accepting mutation in the name of purchaser that id D-6)
 is not rebutted by plaintiff in order to succeed in her case. 7.
 
In a suit where government is a party section 80 CPC compliance is mandatory, as such suit should have been dismissed in its entirety at initial stage itself. 8.
 
Party who alleges fraud and fabrication has to prove it strictly. Plaintiff in lower court alleging fraud and fabrication against statutory presumptions failed in her endeavour to prove her case. 9.
 
 The EX D20 marked as evidence for collateral purpose of Severance of joint status with specific order by the court cannot be overturned or overlooked in final stages. Also EX D20(b) signature marked without any objections cannot be overlooked in final stages. 10.
 
Court has Improperly framed issues.
 
 
11.
 
Documentary presumption cannot be thrown out by mere statement of pleadings. 12.
 
When court has marked the document for collateral purpose, with a specific order, it has to take into such purpose along with other documents at EX D34 and D18, which clearly elicits that palupatti was acted upon by the parties. 13.
 
If anyone withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage against the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs.  Jagannath, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1). 14.
 
False representation even without bad motive is fraud. (Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319) 15.
 
Nobody should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods (Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421) 16.
 
Post litigation document does not have any value (STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684). 17.
 
No party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it (Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs C.P.Joshi 2011 AIR 1127 = 2011 (2 ) SCR 216) 18.
 
All "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him (Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors (2004) 7 SCC 181)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->