Supreme Court restores dismissal of partition suit over ancestral property sale

Pattabi), where the father's family (wife and sons) sought partition of the land, alleging the sale was invalid due to lack of legal necessity. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's dismissal of this partition suit.

Who it concerns: Appellant: H.G. Pattabi (purchaser of the land); Respondents: K.R. Suraj and others (wife and sons of the deceased seller, Renukaiah); Bench: Justice Mehta.

What the court decided

• The Court heard the appeal on merits after correcting a record error regarding the status of Respondent No. 3.
• The Court analyzed the pleadings, evidence, and the High Court's judgment.
• The Court examined the issue of whether the alienation of ancestral property was supported by legal necessity.
• The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not seek cancellation of the sale deed in their suit.
• The Court observed that the High Court relied on testimony regarding the deceased's habits (gambling/alcohol) which was not pleaded in the plaint.

Also in the document

• The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final operative order (e.g., whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed) or the final date of the judgment.
• The Court noted that the plaintiffs' claim regarding the father's 'bad vices' was beyond the averments made in the original plaint.
• The Court noted that the plaintiffs did not seek a specific relief for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 5th August, 1993.