Suit for partition of joint property

Possession of one co-sharer is always deemed on behalf of the rest of the co-sharers upon the undivided joint property.

Predecessor-in-interest of defendants admitting extent of her share (7/24) in joint property through a registered instrument

Effect

Defendants could not claim full ownership of joint property, when the registered instrument executed by their predecessor-in-interest, wherein extent of share in the joint property was admitted, was in the knowledge of the defendants

Defendants never sought cancellation of such registered instrument, thus, they were estopped from claiming any share in the joint property over and above their share (7/24)

Rule of acquiescence, waiver and estoppel was attracted in the present case and defendants were precluded from denying the co-ownership of the plaintiffs in the joint property

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Pursuant to preliminary decree, plaintiff moved Trial Court for partition to extent of his share and passing of final decree, and a Local Commission in such regard was appointed by the court, who suggested a mode of partition vide report submitted to the court

Some of the defendants took up objection to the said report, however such objections were discarded by Trial Court and a final decree was passed according to the report of the Local Commission

Appeal filed by defendants also could not succeed, however High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside the two decisions and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide objections filed by contesting defendants in accordance with law and to pass a fresh final decree

Pleas of plaintiff were that remand order was not justified as entire record was available before the Revisional Court and, therefore the matter should have been decided on basis of such record; that a number of defendants had never filed objections to the report of the Local Commission and therefore were disentitled to challenge the same, and that report of Local Commission was inconsonance with the share of the plaintiff and most of judgment-debtors did not bother to appear before the Commission for giving their point of view in regard to mode of partition

Validity

Proceedings conducted by Local Commission for partition of property were inherently defective for the reason that no notice had been issued to all the defendants/judgment-debtors of the preliminary decree before finalizing the report

Besides, the record transpired that contesting defendants had filed objections to the report but such objections were not dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with law

Such vital aspects of the matter had been taken into account by the Revisional Court while interfering with the decision of the two courts below and remanding the matter

Appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed in circumstances.