Two different suits
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 09 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
In the year 2005, a partition suit was filed. Taking advantage of the family dispute, a group of fraudsters attempted to grab the property and created false encumbrances on the property withthe help some fake documents. In order to prevent the fraudsters in creating encumbrances, a seperate suit was filed requesting the court to issue a permanent injection agaisnt the fraudsters for tresspassing the property and creating encumbrances. However, there is no mention about the partition suit which is running already. It may be noted that the previous one is a partition suit and the second one is on total strangers seeking permanent injection. Failure to mention the partition suit in the second one is argued as suppressing of actual facts to the court. In my opinion, there was no need to mention the pending partition suit as the respondents in the second suit are total strangers not related to the family or property and there was no need since it was seeking permanent injection against tresspassing and creating encumbrance. Please share your views on this.
Thanks & Regards
Balaji
Ghanshyam Prasad
(Expert) 09 March 2012
Your view is correct.Two suits are on different footing.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 09 March 2012
The argument of the counsel for the encroachers is not tenable before law and those have nothing to do with the internal partition between the co-sharers.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 09 March 2012
Rightly said,
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
ajay sethi
(Expert) 09 March 2012
agree with experts
niranjan
(Expert) 09 March 2012
Cause of actions and parties to the suits are different and the fact of partition suit is not relevant with the suit against strangers,so no question of suppressing facts.
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 09 March 2012
The Cause of Action for the first suit is undefined ownership and right to cull out your share from the joint property and naturally lies against other joint tenants.
The cause of action for the 2nd is right to own and possess peacefully and is filed against strangers (though I am presuming no fraudster claims through anyone in the family)
Since Cause of Actions are different - one is not affected by the other.
It's not res subjudice because as i said matters in issue are different
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 10 March 2012
Rightly advised. But the thing is you have not mentioned whether your right is determined to the specific portion of the property on which you have filed injunction suit. Of course, till the share is worked out and determined all are coparceners; yet non mentioning would be a little bit fatal as all the coparceners have not filed the injunction suit.
