Partition
Preliminary decree—Trial court declined to recognize power of attorney and conveyance executed thereunder—Plaint ‘A’ schedule was held to be available for partition—Challenged—When the power of attorney expresses itself to be one executed by the plaintiffs, and the rights of plaintiffs have been conveyed thereunder, it is not open for them to ignore the same and seek for the partition—Plaintiffs are bound to seek appropriate reliefs as against the said document—Mere suit for partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule is thus, bound to fail.
[Paras 15 & 16]
Preliminary decree—Trial court declined to recognize power of attorney and conveyance executed thereunder—Plaint ‘A’ schedule was held to be available for partition—Challenged—Reason given by trial court that since power of attorney is an unregistered, it could not be recognized—An unregistered power of attorney could not be discarded based on Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, as it pertains to the presentation of the document for registration, not the actual execution—Plaint ‘A’ schedule property having been conveyed on the basis of power of attorney and a decree could not be granted with regard to the same—Decree of partition granted in respect of plaint `A’ schedule property is liable to be interfered with—It is held that paint ‘A’ schedule property is not available for partition.
[Paras 17 & 18]
Preliminary decree—With regard to the plaint ‘B’ schedule, the contention regarding the very non-existence of the property was negative, and property was held to be available for partition—Challenged—Boundary description on all the four sides of plaint ‘B’ schedule property and property covered under gift deed is one and same—Properties lie within the common boundary and both were subject matter of partition—If on actual measurement there is any reduction in the total extent, it has to be borne proportionately by the sharers—Finding of trial court with regard to the partibility of plaint ‘B’ schedule property warrants no interference.
[Paras 19 to 24]