#partition of property

An oral, temporary settlement among co-owners does not meet the legal definition of a partition, so the Delhi High Court allowed a fresh partition suit despite earlier compromise orders. The decision confirms informal compromises cannot bar new partition actions under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, affecting joint-family property litigants.

Bombay High Court rules that a suit for specific performance of an undivided share in immovable property must include a claim for partition under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court also held that contingent contracts become void upon withdrawal of the underlying litigation, and blanket injunctions require precise property description to be valid.

Bombay HC reaffirms that under Muslim law, partition of ancestral property during the father's lifetime is invalid and cannot confer valid title on purchasers. Heirs retain inheritance rights even against subsequent bona fide purchasers, reinforcing the primacy of succession over alienation without legal partition. The ruling protects daughters' shares in ancestral property from fraudulent transfers.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that co-owners in exclusive possession cannot undertake construction on joint property during pending partition proceedings if it prejudices other co-owners' interests. The court affirmed that equitable restraint applies even without formal ouster, ensuring fair partition outcomes.