SUNITABAI NARAINA NAIQUE Vs. SHREEPAD S NAIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Senior Advocate Shri . M. S. Usgaonkar for the appellants. None present for the respondent, though served.

(2.) THIS is an appeal from the Order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji , dated 28th March, 2001, allowing partition of the property, item no.2 on the list of immovable properties, filed by the ' cabecal de casal ' in the inventory Court. By the impugned Order the trial Court disagreed with the contention of the appellants that the partition should not be allowed as the said partition would incur huge expenses. The learned trial Judge however, has not dealt with the objection as mentioned at paras 6 and 8 of the reply dated 9th December, 1999, filed by the appellants/interested parties. This reply was to the application dated 28th October, 1999 filed by the ' cabecal de casal '. In the said application it was stated that the parties had mutually agreed that items no.2 and 3 mentioned in the list dated 14th February, 1997, be divided into equal parts among the interested parties. In their reply, the appellants denied that any such agreement for partitioning of the property by metes and bounds was arrived at, and incidentally, one of the reasons given was that partitioning of the properties would involve huge expenses and cause practical difficulties.

(3.) IN the present case also the appellants have not agreed to any partitioning of the property and in fact have objected to the same in their reply to the application filed by the ' cabecal de casal ' for partitioning of the property. The trial Court has not dealt with the objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court in passing any Order for partitioning. The trial Court clearly exceeded its authority in directing partition of the property by metes and bounds in the face of objections taken by the appellants.