AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 184 wordsN. Ananda
There are three suits for partition and another suit for specific performance filed in O.S. No. 19/2007, 542/2009, 145/2011 and O.S. No. 290/2007. The learned District Judge has held that O.S.Nos. 19/2007, 542/2009, 145/2011 shall be tried with O.S. No. 290/2007. In O.S. No. 290/2007, the plaintiff alleges that there is already a partition and suit schedule properties therein have fallen to share of defendant. The suits in O.S. No. 542/2009 and O.S. No. 145/2011 are filed contending that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and there is no partition. In the circumstances, the learned District Judge was justified in passing the impugned order.
The Learned Counsel for petitioners submit that the suit filed for specific performance is being unnecessarily delayed as the parties to partition suits are not interested in getting early decision of the case.
In view of this submission, the learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to decide the aforestated suits on merits within a period of one year from today for which parties shall extend their co-operation. The petition is dismissed with these observations.