LawforAll

▼
Friday, November 30, 2012

For the purpose of assigning one's interest in the property, it was not necessary that partition by metes and bounds amongst the coparceners must take place. When an intention is expressed to partition the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners becomes clear and ascertainable. Once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. The parties in such an event would not possess the property as "joint tenants" but as "tenants-in-common". -when once the partition is effected in the coparcenary property, the share of each of the coparceners will be clear and ascertainable and once the share of a coparcener is determined, it ceases to be a coparcenary property. In the instant case, the properties were partitioned between the grandfather and the father of the plaintiffs. Once there was a split in the coparcenary, the coparcenary ceases to be existing thereafter and the coparcenary will not continue because there cannot be two joint families in claiming the right over the ancestral properties. When once the properties became the separate properties of Muthukumarasamy Chettiar, only his class-I heirs will be entitled to the said properties and the plaintiffs, who are not coming under the class-I legal heirs, in my considered opinion, are not entitled to claim any share in the 'A' schedule properties.

›
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:27.04.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUBBIAH Second Appeal  No.319 of 2007 ...
Thursday, November 29, 2012

service - a dispute of inter se seniority between Income Tax Inspectors of the Income Tax Department. Direct recruits and promotees are pitted on opposite sides.=In all these cases the advertised vacancies were filled up in the original/first examination/selection conducted for the same. None of the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a “later” examination/selection process. The facts only reveal, that the examination and the selection process of direct recruits could not be completed within the recruitment year itself. For this, the modification/amendment in the manner of determining the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, carried out through the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the compilation of the instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM dated 3.7.1986, leave no room for any doubt, that the “rotation of quotas” principle, would be fully applicable to the direct recruits in the present controversy. The direct recruits herein will therefore have to be interspaced with promotees of the same recruitment year. 34. In view of the above, the Civil Appeals, the Transferred Case, as well as, the Transfer Case (filed by the direct recruits and the Union of India) are hereby allowed. The claim of the promotees, that the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors, in the instant case should be assigned seniority with reference to the date of their actual appointment in the Income Tax Department is declined.

›
                                                                “REPORTABLE”                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  ...