SOMIREDDI BURRAYYA Vs. SOMIREDDI ATCHAYYAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1958-3-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
March 12,1958
SOMIREDDI BURRAYYA
Appellant
VERSUS
SOMIREDDI ATCHAYYAMMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LATCHAYYA V. SEETHAMMA [REFERRED TO]JADUNATH ROY VS. PARAMESWAR MULLICK [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NAHAN FOUNDARY LTD VS. RAM KISHAN KULWANT RAI [LAWS(DLH)-1970-7-11] [REFERRED]KALKONDA PANDU RANGAIAH VS. KALKONDA KRISHNAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1973-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SYED IKRAMUDDIN VS. SYED MAHAMED ALI [LAWS(APH)-1984-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIMMUNNISA BEGUM VS. MOHAMMAD MOHAMMADULLA KHAN DURRANI [LAWS(APH)-2004-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI PRASAD SONI VS. S KRIPAL SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1980-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAOSAHEBRAO DESHMUKH VS. MAHARASHTRA INSECTICIDES LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL CHHOTABHAI SOMABHAI DECD VS. JAISWAL KESHAVLAL RAMDAYAL DECD [LAWS(GJH)-1985-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
AMINA BEE DIED VS. AISHA KHATOON [LAWS(APH)-1997-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
HANSABAI SHRIPATI BHOSALE VS. PARUBAI GOPAL BHOSALE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-183] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1972-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR AWADHENDRA PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH VS. RAJ KUMAR RAGHUBANSMANI PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1978-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA PRASAD VS. GHAN SHYAM GUPTA [LAWS(PAT)-2001-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
BHAMARA ALIAS BHRAMARA HATI AND ORS. VS. KHETI BEWA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1979-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI VS. LALITHA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
HANSABAI SRIPATI BHOSALE VS. PARUBAI GOPAL BHOSALE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The question involved in the civil revision petition is whether a Court has jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint schedule on the ground of mistake after preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit.
(2.)It was directed to be posted before a Bench, as it was thought that the question was of sufficient importance involving one of procedure.
(3.)The facts material for the appreciation of the contentions arising in this petition may be briefly stated. The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a one-third snare in the plaint schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 27-10-1952, and a Commissioner was appointed to partition the properties and the Commissioner went to the spot for partitioning the properties. Obstruction was offered so far as one item of the property covered by S. No. 171 was concerned. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for substituting another item of property included in the S. Nos. 51/1, 52/2, 52/3 and 83 for S. No. 171, alleging that she had mentioned by mistake S. No. 171 as part of the joint family properties. This was opposed on the ground that the property sought to be substituted was not joint family property but was the stridhana property of the defendants. The objection was overruled and the application was allowed. It is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.
(2.)It was directed to be posted before a Bench, as it was thought that the question was of sufficient importance involving one of procedure.
(3.)The facts material for the appreciation of the contentions arising in this petition may be briefly stated. The respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of a one-third snare in the plaint schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 27-10-1952, and a Commissioner was appointed to partition the properties and the Commissioner went to the spot for partitioning the properties. Obstruction was offered so far as one item of the property covered by S. No. 171 was concerned. The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for substituting another item of property included in the S. Nos. 51/1, 52/2, 52/3 and 83 for S. No. 171, alleging that she had mentioned by mistake S. No. 171 as part of the joint family properties. This was opposed on the ground that the property sought to be substituted was not joint family property but was the stridhana property of the defendants. The objection was overruled and the application was allowed. It is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.