Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Partition Act, 1893

15 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

BABULALversusHABIBNOOR KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 25826 April 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dwelling‑house owned by an undivided family in which one co‑owner sold his one‑third share to Babu Lal, a stranger to the family. Respondent No.1, the decree‑holder in a partition suit, sought a decree under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893, to buy out Babu Lal's share, even though Babu Lal had

MRS. MALATI RAMCHANDRA RAUT AND ORS.versusMAHADEVO VASUDEO JOSHI AND ORS.

1990 INSC 39320 December 1990Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit, the plaintiffs (holding two‑thirds) sought sale of undivisible property and the defendants (holding one‑third) applied under Section 3 of the Partition Act, 1893 to purchase the plaintiffs' shares. The dispute centered on the appropriate date for valuing those shares—whether it should be the date t

TILAK RAJ BAKSHIversusAVINASH CHAND SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

2019 INSC 92320 August 2019Dismissed

The plaintiff, Tilak Raj Bakshi, claimed that his brother (the first defendant) violated a family settlement by selling his one‑third share of a Chandigarh house to a stranger (the second defendant) without obtaining the written concurrence of the other brothers and without offering the share to the plaintiff as requir

GHANTESHER GHOSHversusMADAN MOHAN GHOSH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 107118 September 1996Disposed off

The case concerned a residential dwelling house owned by an undivided family. After a partition suit, the widow of a deceased co‑owner obtained a final decree for her one‑third share and later gifted that share to her brother, a stranger to the family, who filed an execution petition. During execution, the legal heir o

GAUTAM PAULversusDEBI RANI PAUL AND ORS

2000 INSC 48817 October 2000Disposed off

The case concerned a residential dwelling house that had been transferred through several generations and eventually a 1/9 share was sold to Gautam Paul, who was not a member of the undivided family that owned the house. Debi Rani Paul and Radha Rani Paul, members of that family, filed a suit for partition and invoked

NARASHIMAHA MURTHYversusSMT. SUSHEELABAI & ORS.

1996 INSC 53717 April 1996Dismissed

Narasoji Rao died intestate leaving a sole son (the appellant) and five daughters (including the plaintiff). The daughter filed a suit for partition of the family house (Schedule A) and other property, alleging a one‑seventh share, later increased to one‑sixth after the mother’s death. The trial court granted a prelimi

RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETHversusKIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

2025 INSC 110912 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister‑in‑law could not sell a jointly owned bungalow and that an agreement to sell dated 21‑10‑2011 was void. After the sister‑in‑law died, the court substituted a Nazir as defendant No.1. In 2021 the respondent (defendant No.2) applied to amend his wri

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusSAHUJAIN CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ORS.

2007 INSC 74511 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Punjab National Bank (PNB) held 66.94% of the shares in a co‑owned property and sought its partition. A preliminary decree in 1977 allotted the bank 83 of 124 shares and ordered a public auction of the property, but the auction was never carried out. After several fresh valuations and a confirmed sale to PNB on 24 June

VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHETversusNOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

2011 INSC 38111 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet, bought a dwelling house from several co‑sharers of a deceased owner but the agreement of sale did not include the minor grandson (Defendant No. 3). The minor did not join the sale and later offered to purchase the 9/11 share, prompting the High Court to fix a market value and di

SRILEKHA GHOSH (ROY) AND ANR.versusPARTHA SARATHI GHOSH

2002 INSC 2949 July 2002Disposed off

The case involved a dwelling house inherited by a brother (respondent) and his two sisters (appellants) who had received their shares by gift from their mother. The sisters filed a partition suit; during the proceedings the younger sister married and the brother sought to pre‑empt her share under Section 4 of the Parti

KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusKALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6978 October 2010Dismissed

The vendee, Kammana Sambamurthy, entered into a sale agreement with the vendor, Kalipatnapu Kamaraju, for an entire house, paying an advance of Rs.10,000. The vendor's wife, Kalipatnapu Atchutamma, later claimed a half‑share in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought cancellation of the agr

RANI ALOKA DUDHORIA AND OTHERSversusGOUTAM DUDHORIA AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 3215 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a long‑running partition suit involving three immovable properties. The parties had agreed to an inter‑party auction without a formal valuation, but the Commissioner of Partition and the Calcutta High Court failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Partition Act, 1893, notably Section

SATLUJ JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.versusDILA RAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 135 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant corporation acquired agricultural land jointly held by a family for a hydro‑electric project under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and formulated a Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme for land‑less families. One brother obtained a land‑less certificate and was granted all benefits under the

RAM KARAN GUPTAversusJ.S. EXIM LTD. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5593 December 2012Dismissed

In a partition suit, the suit property was ordered to be sold by public auction. J.S. Exim Ltd., the highest bidder, paid 25% of the bid amount by demand drafts on the auction day and the remaining 75% within the statutory period. The judgment debtor, Ram Karan Gupta, challenged the sale alleging non‑compliance with Or

GIAN CHAND KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusRABINDRA MOHAN KAPUR & ORS.

1986 INSC 2553 December 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Chander Mohan gifted a house to his nephew Gian Chand in 1937 and later sued to cancel the gift. The dispute was referred to arbitration, resulting in a family settlement award that was accepted by the court, granting Chander Mohan a life‑time right of enjoyment, Gian Chand and the sons of Mohinder Mohan each one‑third

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search