WHAT IS A PLAINT?

Plaint is a legal document that contains the claims of the plaintiff. It is essentially a first
steptowards initiation of a suit. Initially, the contents of a particular civil suit are laid down in a
plaint. A plaint contains the cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff’s
grievances.
Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically deals with a plaint. Some of the
essentials of a plaint is that it must only contain material and relevant facts. A plaint should not
contain any evidence or law. The relevant facts should be laid down in a concise and precise
manner.

A plaint must properly include the name of a particular court where the suit is to be instituted. It
must also contain the name, place, description of the plaintiff’s residence as well as the
defendant’s residence, in so far as it can possibly be ascertained. The facts must clearly showcase
a cause of action and the date when that particular cause of action arose. The facts must also
point out about the jurisdiction of the court along with the relief that is claimed by the plaintiff.
A statement as to valuation of a suit must also be there, for the purpose of jurisdiction and for
ascertaining the appropriate court fees.

WHAT IS PARTITION?
Partition refers to the division of jointly held properties along with the ancillary or incidental
rights. Partition is followed by the conferment of possession of respective partitioned shares
on the concerned parties. Partition which is in accordance with the law, converts the joint title
of an individual to an exclusive one, over a particular share to which he is entitled.

Partition may also be stated as redistribution or crystallization of pre-existing rights amongst the
co-owners or coparceners. It must be noted that, division of land or other property, which is the
subject matter of partition, results in differentiation of different lots and portions of the
partitioned estate, which was jointly held by the parties earlier.Partition has several effects, in
that the partition would convert the joint ownership to an individual ownership. The property that
vested jointly into various co-owners or coparceners would now vest, in the form of definite
respective shares, individually with different shareholders.
BASIC PRINCIPLE OF PARTITION
The principle of partition states that any estate which can be divided or partitioned without
destroying its value, shall be partitioned. But if the partition cannot be done without destroying
the value of the property, then monetary compensation may be given. This showcases that the
prime focus must be on preserving the value of the property to the extent that, it mayeven
begiven a priority over other considerations.

If the court thinks that the partition is not feasible, looking at the nature of the estate and the
terrain, then it may order the sale of the whole or any portion of such estate and order the
distribution of the sale proceeds in accordance with the shares of the respective parties. This has
been provided under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, which reads as follows: -
“Power to court to order sale instead of division in partition suits.—Whenever in any suit for
partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition
might have been made, it appears to the court that, by reason of the nature of the properly to
which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein, or of any other special
circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a
sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial for all the
shareholders, the court may, if it thinks fit, on the request of any of such shareholders interested
individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property
and a distribution of the proceeds.”

COPARCENARY/ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY

It is hereby pertinent to note that the sole subject matter of partition could be the coparcenar y
property or the ancestral property. It is only the ancestral or the coparcenary property that is open
to partition, and not the self-acquired property. A self-acquired property is one which is acquired
by a person during his lifetime by his hard-earned money or a gift.

LAWS GOVERNING PARTITION IN INDIA

2
Primarily, the laws governing partition in India include the Partition Act, 1893 and the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. The relevant and important provision under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for the purpose of partition of property is Section 54.
Further, Order 20 Rule 18of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also deals with decree in suit for
partition of property or separate possession of the respective shares thereof.

Rule 18 of Order 20reads as follows:

“Decree in suit for partition of property or separate possession of a share therein. —Where the
Court passes a decree for the partition of property or for the separate possession of a share
therein, then, —
(1) if and in so far as the decree relates to an estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the
Government, the decree shall declare the rights of the several parties interested in the property,
but shall direct such partition or separation to be made by the Collector, or any gazetted
subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with such declaration
and with the provisions of section 54;
(2) if and in so far as such decree relates to any other immovable property or to movable
property, the Court may, if the partition or separation cannot be conveniently made without
further inquiry, pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the several parties interested in
the property and giving such further directions as may be required.”

Furthermore, the courts have been conferred with the powers to appoint and issue commissions
for the purposes of assisting in undertaking partition by metes and bounds. This power has been
conferred under Order 26 Rule 13 and Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Rule 13 Order 26 reads as under: -

“Commission to make partition of immovable property—Where a preliminary decree for
partition has been passed, the Court may, in any case not provided for by section 54, issue a
commission to such person as it thinks fit to make the partition or separation according to the
rights as declared in such decree.”

Rule 14 Order 26 reads as under: -

3
“Procedure of Commissioner. — (1) The Commissioner shall, after such inquiry as may be
necessary, divide the property into as many shares as may be directed by the order under which
the commission wasissued, and shall allot such shares to the parties, and may, if authorised
thereto by the said order, award sums to be paid for the purpose of equalizing the value of the
shares.
(2) The commissioner shall then prepare and sign a report or the Commissioners (where the
commission was issued to more than one person and they cannot agree) shall prepare and sign
separate reports appointing the share of each party and distinguishing each share (if so directed
by the said order) by metes and bounds. Such report or reports shall be annexed to the
commission and transmitted to the Court; and the Court, after hearing any objections which the
parties may make to the report or reports, shall confirm, vary or set aside the same.
(3) Where the Court confirms or varies the report or reports it shall pass a decree in accordance
with the same as confirmed or varied; but where the Court sets aside the report or reports it
shall either issue a new commission or make such other order as it shall think fit.”

ILLUSTRATION
Vinod Kumar is the father of Deepak Kumar (Elder Son) and Nitin Kumar (Younger Son). As
part of a Hindu Undivided Family, they together own apple orchards spread over thirty acres on
the outskirts of Shimla. Initially, all three of them shared good relationship with one another.
However, on 3rd January, 2024, Nitin told Vinod about his plans to migrate to Australia, to
permanently settle and start a new business venture there.Being aware of huge investment
involved, Nitin demanded partition and possession of his 1/3 rd share i.e., ten acres, so that he
would sell it and invest the proceeds into a business venture in Australia. Subsequently, on 3rd
January, 2024, Deepak also demanded partition and possession of his 1/3 rd share i.e., ten acres,
as he wanted to start his own import-export business in Apples, as Vinod had earlier refused to
collectively undertake the import-export business with Deepak.
Vinod did not give any clear response and told his sons, that he would consult their family
advocate pertaining to the same, as he (Vinod) needed to ascertain the terrain of the land for
partitioning, settle and discharge certain pending dispute regarding payments against the
estate.After waiting for a period of more than three months, facing non-favourable attitude from

4
their father, Deepak and Nitin filed the suit for partition and possession of their respective 1/3rd
shares i.e., ten acres each, on 4th March, 2024.

PLAINT IN SUIT FOR PARTITION AND POSSESSION

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), SHIMLA

CIVIL SUIT NO………OF 2024
Nitin Kumar aged 24 s/o Vinod Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Plaintiff 1
Deepak Kumar aged 29 s/o Vinod Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Plaintiff 2
Vs.
Vinod Kumar,aged 53s/o Ramesh Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Defendant
Plaint in Suit for Partition and Possession
The aforementioned plaintiffs pleads as under: -
1. That the above-named parties together form part of a Hindu Undivided Family. That
plaintiffs reside at H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla.
2. That the above-named defendant is the father of the above-named plaintiffs and resides with
them at H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla.
3. That all three of them initially shared a good relationship with one another.
4. That the above-named parties together own thirty acres of apple orchards on the outskirts of
Shimla.
5. That on 3rd January, 2024 ,plaintiff 1 told defendant that heplans to migrate to Australia
permanently and do his business there.
6. That plaintiff 1 demanded his 1/3rd share for selling and investing its proceeds for business in
Australia, as it involved heavy investment.
7. That on 3rdJanuary, 2024, plaintiff 2 also demanded his 1/3rd share for starting import-export
business in apples, as defendant had earlier refused to do business with plaintiff 2 jointly.
8. That defendant has been, on the pretext of consulting the family advocate, delaying the
process and gave no clear response, either to plaintiff 1 or to plaintiff 2.
9. That the delay by defendant is causing unnecessary inconvenience and hardship to the
plaintiffs.

5
10. That the cause of action arose on 3rd January, 2024, when defendant gave no clear response
to the plaintiffs and in fact, further delayed the process on the pretext of consulting family
advocate.
11. That the suit is valued at Rs. …. for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees.
12. That the Hon’ble court has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit, as the suit premises
are situated within the local limits of this court.
13. That the plaintiff therefore prays that:
a) A decree of partition and subsequent possession, be issued in favour of plaintiff 1 and
plaintiff 2 in relation to their respective 1/3rd shares i.e., ten acres each.
b) Any other relief which the court may deem think fit.
S/d Advocate Sd/-
Plaintiff 1
Plaintiff 2
Verification: We, Nitin Kumar and Deepak Kumar s/o Vinod Kumar, r/o H No. 546, Khalini,
Shimla, state that the above contents are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief
and the legal advice sought,and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Sd/-
Plaintiff 1
Date………………. Plaintiff 2
Place………………
Annexures attached:
A. Certified copy of the revenue record of estate, showcasing the Khewat No. … and Khatauni
No….
B. Pedigree table of the family, depicting relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

6
WHAT IS WRITTEN STATEMENT?

In the legal parlance, word statement signifies pleading for defence. The word written statement
has not been specifically defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, it necessarily
connotes or signifies a reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff, by the defendant.

It is a legal document filed by the defendant in his defence against the claims of the plaintiff. It is
part of the defendant’s right to be heard in a suit instituted against him.

It is hereby pertinent to note that, in a written statement, the defendant deals with every single
material fact alleged by the plaintiff, in addition to any new facts in his favour, or the defendant
takes a legal objection against the claim raised by the plaintiff.

Order 8Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically deals with the written
statement. It states that the defendant shall file a written statement as part of his defence, within a
period of 30 days, from the date of receiving the summons.

However, the court has been given the power to extend the period for defendant to file the
written statement beyond a period of 30 days, subject to a maximum of 90 days from the date of
service summons, to file written statement.

Rule 1 Order 8 reads as follows: -

“Written Statement. —The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of
summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of
thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the
Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from
the date of service of summons.
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of
thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be
specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as
the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of

7
service of summonsand on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of
summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall
not allow the written statement to be taken on record.”
Order 8 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, states that every denial by the defendant,
in the written statement shall be specific. It means that any allegation made by the plaintiff shall
be denied specifically by the defendant. The defendant shall not resort to any general denial of
alleged facts by the plaintiff.

Rule 3 Order 8 reads as follows: -

“Denial to be specific. —It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny
generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each
allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.”

8
 WRITTEN STATEMENT IN SUIT FOR PARTITION AND POSSESSION

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), SHIMLA

CIVIL SUIT NO………OF 2024
Nitin Kumar s/o Vinod Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Plaintiff 1
Deepak Kumar s/o Vinod Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Plaintiff 2
Vs.
Vinod Kumar s/o Ramesh Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla……. Defendant
Written Statement in Suit for Partition and Possession
The aforementioned defendant replies as under: -
1. That the defendant agrees with the contents of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.
2. That the defendant agrees with the contents of paragraph 4, regarding owning of apple
orchards.
3. That the defendant agrees with the contents of paragraphs5 and 6.
4. That the defendant partly disagrees with the content of paragraph 7, regarding defendant
refusing to do business with plaintiff 2, as defendant just needed to clear the payment
disputes pertaining to land, before indulging in import-export business with plaintiff 2.
5. That the defendant disagrees with the content of paragraph 8, as defendant needs to consult
his family advocate to ascertain the terrain of the land for partitioning and to clear certain
payment disputes pertaining to the estate.
6. That the defendant disagrees with the content of paragraph 9, as the delay is inevitable
looking at the nature of pending payment disputes and terrain of land, due to which partition
by metes and bounds is inconvenient and difficult to be undertaken.
7. That the defendant disagrees with the content of paragraph 10, as defendant stated clearly to
plaintiff 1 and to plaintiff 2 about ascertaining terrain of land for partitioning and discharging
pending payment disputes, due to which the process was bound to be delayed.
8. That the defendant agrees with the contents of paragraphs 11 and 12, regarding jurisdiction
and court fees.

9
9. That the defendant therefore prays that:
a) To not pass any decree of partition and possession, either in favour of plaintiff 1 or in
plaintiff 2, as there is a pending payment dispute pertaining to land and terrain has not been
ascertained, which would need some time.
b) Any other relief which the court may deem think fit.
Sd/- Advocate
Sd/-
Defendant
Verification: I, Vinod Kumar s/o Ramesh Kumar r/o H No. 546, Khalini, Shimla, state that the
above contents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and the legal advice
sought, and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Sd/
Defendant
Date……………….
Place………………
Annexure attached:

10