A registered full-and-final partition deed renders a pending partition suit infructuous.

The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were members of a Hindu joint family whose father, Chinnappa, had acquired land in Sy. Nos. 15 and 16.

The plaintiffs claimed that 21,359 sq. ft. remained joint family property and sought partition and separate possession of a 4/6th share, together with a permanent injunction against defendant No. 3, Lowry Memorial School, over alleged encroachment

During the suit, the family members executed a registered partition deed dated 7 May 2012.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the deed had divided the family properties and that the alleged encroachment by a third party could not be adjudicated in the partition suit.

The plaintiffs appealed under Section 96 CPC

1. Whether the registered partition deed executed during the suit left any joint family property available for partition by decree.

2. Whether the plaintiffs could obtain an injunction against defendant No. 3 for alleged encroachment in the partition suit.

A partition suit presupposes the existence of joint family status and unpartitioned joint family property.

Where coparceners execute a full and final partition deed dividing the family properties, their joint status ceases and the divided property is no longer available for partition by court decree.

A partition suit is not the appropriate proceeding to determine a boundary dispute or recover possession from an alleged third-party trespasser; a claimant alleging encroachment must pursue an appropriate remedy.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC.

The Court found that the registered partition deed was executed by the family members during the suit and that plaintiff No. 2 testified that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had taken their respective shares.

Applying the rule that a completed partition leaves no joint property for a partition decree, it held that the suit had become infructuous.

The alleged encroachment concerned land claimed independently by defendant No. 3, a stranger to the family, and therefore could not be resolved through the partition suit.

It also held that the alleged encroachment claim against defendant No. 3 could not be pursued in the partition suit.

Finding no ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, the High Court dismissed the appeal.