Where to file a suit for partition

808 votes

It depends on Rules of concerned High Court. You can check it with local lawyer or tell me which State you are in. Regarding time for disposal,it depends on various factors like complexity of cae, defence taken by opposite side, pendency of cases etc.

Advocate S P Srivastava LawRato

699 votes

Firstly please let us know where your properties are situated, than only we will be able to advice properly. As in such cases two conditions needs to be fulfilled i.e. territorial jurisdiction as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction.

LawRato LawRato

509 votes

Sir,

filing of any suit/ case is decided by law i.e. by pecuniary jurisdiction not arbitrarily so you have to file your suit as per pecuniary jurisdiction only.
Bombay High Court in Sabastian Antonio Texeira And ... vs Rodolf Minguel Texeira And Ors. on 28 April, 1960
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Bom 4, (1961) 63 BOMLR 552
Bench: Shah
while deciding question on pecuniary jurisdiction given following observation;
"(8) I am informed that this matter was heard for some time by Mr. Justice K. K. Desai. After hearing arguments as regards the questions of the valuation of the shares of the plaintiffs in the properties of the deceased, the learned Judge had referred the matter to the Taxing Master for determining the value of the entire properties of the deceased as also the income of the properties for 3 years prior to the date of the suit. For the purpose of determining the value of the plaintiffs' share the Taxing Master made his report on 15th February 1960 in pursuance of the consent terms which were presented to him by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 7 on the other. According to those consent terms it was agreed between the parties that the value of the ancestral property desired to be partitioned in this suit on the date of the suit was Rs. 34,000/-. It was further agreed that the amount payable by defendants Nos. 1 to 7 to the plaintiffs for their share in the income of such ancestral property on the footing that accounts could only be asked for for a period of three years ending with the date of the suit was Rs. 675.59 nP. Pursuant to these consent terms and the report made by the Taxing Master on the basis thereof, it is admitted by the counsel for the plaintiffs that the value of the plaintiffs' share in the property of which partition is sought in this suit would be about Rs. 6,000/-. As regards the value of the share of the plaintiffs in the income of the properties of the deceased for three years prior to the date of the suit, although it is shown as Rs. 675.59 nP., the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that really speaking in the plaint the plaintiffs had asked for accounts right from 1942 and that, therefore, their share of the income of the properties of the deceased would be much larger than what had been shown to be by consent only for a period of three years. Even making allowance for this contention, one has only got to compute the income for another 9 years and this computation would be based upon the terms of the consent terms themselves as to their share of the income for three years prior to the date of the suit. On this calculation the plaintiffs' share in the income of the deceased's property right from 1942 down to 1954 would not be more than 3,000/- in any event. Accordingly, the total value of the plaintiffs' share in the property of the deceased would not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. It was with great hesitation that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that the value of the plaintiff's share would not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. He, however, contended that the jurisdiction of a Court even in a partition suit is not based upon the value of the share of the plaintiff in the ancestral property. I cannot understand this contention. Paragraph 11 of the plaint itself points out very clearly, in order that the suit may lie within the jurisdiction of this Court, that the value of the plaintiffs' share in the property of the deceased exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. This averment can very properly be said to have been made in view of the position in law that in a partition suit the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court depends on the value of the share of the plaintiff in the property of which partition is sought and not upon the value of the whole of the property of which partition is sought. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, somehow did not seem to agree to this obvious position in law with the result that I had to call upon the learned counsel for the defendants to cite any authorities, if he had, in support of the proposition that the jurisdiction of the Court as regards a suit for partition depends upon the value of the plaintiffs' share in the property of which partition is sought and not upon the total value of the properties of which partition is sought. The learned counsel for the defendants promptly cited several decisions one of which was Shevantibai v. Janardhan Raghunath . That was a case in which the assignee of the purchaser from a member of a joint family of a share in the joint family property sued for partition of the family property and to have the share allotted to her. The total value of the joint family property exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. The value of the share to which the appellant was, however, entitled was about Rs. 3,000/- only. On a question being raised as to whether on appeal to His Majesty in Council the value of the subject-matter should be taken as the value of the whole of the joint family property or the value of the share of the joint family property in respect of which the plaintiff had filed the suit it was held by the Privy Council that the value of the share of the joint family property in respect of which the plaintiff was claiming must be taken to be the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council. Although this decision does not directly refer to a suit for partition in the sense that the question decided was not with reference to the initial jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was filed but with reference to the appeal to the Privy Council, in my opinion, it does not make the slightest difference. Nevertheless, there are other case of our own Court where it has been held that in a suit for partition the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the value of the share which is claimed by the plaintiff in that suit and not upon the total value of the property in which share is claimed. In Abdul Kadar v. Bapubhai, ILR 23 Bom 188, it was held that, in a suit where the defendant asked to have his share divided off and allotted to him, such relief should be granted to him on payment of the necessary court-fees, corresponding to the value of his own share. At page 190 Parsons, J., observed as follows:

(9) There is another decision, J. Cook v. G. H. Cook, AIR 1938 Nag 149. It has been clearly laid down there that the value of the share claimed and not the value of the entire property is the value for the purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for partition where the plaintiff claims partition and separate possession of his share. Thus, there is no doubt that in a suit for partition it is the value of the share which the plaintiff claims in the joint family property or the property of which partition is sought, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property. If therefore, this suit is held to be a suit for partition, then this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain it, because, as pointed out in the earlier part of the judgment, the value of the plaintiffs' share does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. In other words, it is very much less than what is necessary for this Court to have the pecuniary jurisdiction."

Advocate Siddharth Dev LawRato