PARIMALA Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit for partition and separate possession. The aggrieved defendant is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) Suit for partition filed by the purchaser of the undivided share of the suit property. Same was defendant by the co-sharer on the ground of pre-existing right to purchase. The Trial Court rejected the said defence.

(3.) The Trial Court judgment and decree is assailed on the ground that the Court below erred in relying upon a void settlement deed dated 02.02.2010 marked as Ex.A.3 and the subsequent sale deed dated 30.09.2010 marked as Ex.A.4, which is per se not maintainable in the eye of law. The contention of the appellant is that a coparcener cannot donate or settle her undivided share in the suit property without the consent of the other coparceners. Therefore, the settlement deed through which the property has been alienated in favour of the plaintiff is non est in the eye of law because the gift or devise by a coparcener in Mitakshara family of her undivided interest is wholly invalid.