SURENDRA KUMAR versus PHOOLCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

SURENDRA KUMAR versus PHOOLCHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

Concurrent findings of the courts below, based on evidence and correct legal principles, establish the property as joint family property, purchased with family funds. Non-inclusion of the property in the earlier suit is not fatal as it was not owned at the time. Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Surendra Kumar; Respondent: Phoolchand (dead) through LRs.; Respondent: Another respondent (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joint Family Property, Apportionment of Compensation, Presumption of Joint Property, Land Acquisition Proceedings
Property Law Hindu Law Land Acquisition Joint Family Property Apportionment of Compensation Presumption of Joint Property Land Acquisition Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Kumar

Appellant

Phoolchand (dead) through LRs.

Respondent

Another respondent (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-inclusion of the disputed property in the earlier partition suit bars the present proceedings under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
  2. 2 Whether the property acquired is joint family property or self-acquired property.

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of the courts below, based on evidence and correct legal principles, establish the property as joint family property, purchased with family funds. Non-inclusion of the property in the earlier suit is not fatal as it was not owned at the time. Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents are entitled to 1/3 share each in the compensation amount.
  • No order as to costs.