Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 413
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.
Mahendra Nath Soral & Another – Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Nath Soral And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1980 of 2024
Decided On : 03-05-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Vijayan, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Partition – Dispute relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners/co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes Redressal (ADR) Process.
Headnote:
Property Law – Partition – [Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 89] – Dispute relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners/co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes Redressal (ADR) Process – In case in hand, once rights of parties and their shares were determined by Trial Court in final decree and Judgment of Trial Court was upheld by High Court – Case in hand was one of most appropriate case in which Court should have tried for resolution of dispute by adopting alternate means namely mediation and conciliation – Courts are required to explore these methods for amicable settlement of family disputes. (Paras 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Suit for partition was filed by the appellant no.1/Mahendra Nath Soral pertaining to the properties left by his late father, impleading his two brothers and two sisters as the defendants. However, in the present appeal the appellants are disputing the partition proceedings only with
reference to the roof rights of Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, measuring 2300.00 sq. ft. Besides this there was another property also bearing House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
Findings of Court:
If argument raised by appellants is to be accepted at this stage, same would amount to coming back to square one, where all properties will have to be revalued for the purpose of partition and this will open a new chapter of litigation between the parties.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment1[Dated 19.09.2018] passed by the High Court2[Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur] in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 170 of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court3[Civil Case No. 17 of 2006] was upheld.
2. The appeal arises out of a dispute between the parties pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late Rameshwar Nath Soral who died on 28.01.1996. He was survived by three sons and two daughters. During the pendency of the litigation one of the daughter, Usha Sharma (Usha Soral) died on 09.05.2018 and her legal heirs were brought on record.
3. From the facts available on record, it is evident that a suit4[Civil Suit No.27 of 2000] for partition was filed by the appellant no.1/Mahendra Nath Soral pertaining to the properties left by his late father, impleading his two brothers and two sisters as the defendants. However, in the present appeal the appellants are disputing the partition proceedings only with reference to the roof rights of Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, measuring 2300.00 sq. ft. Besides this there was another property also bearing House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
4. The Trial Court passed the preliminary decree on 27.04.2005 holding all the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral entitled to equal shares in the immovable and movable properties.
5. The aforesaid preliminary decree was challenged by Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral by filing S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 and S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481 of 2005, respectively before the High Court raising a grievance that Usha Sharma and Asha Soral who are daughters of deceased Rameshwar Nath Soral were given dowry items at the time of their respective marriages and they are not entitled to any share in the immovable properties in terms of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and that Surendra Nath Soral is not in possession of the ornaments, jewelry, gold and silver items.
6. The third appeal, S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.309 of 2001 arose out a suit filed by Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral against Usha Sharma, her husband Mahesh Sharma and her son Mukul Sharma, seeking perpetual injunction with reference to one of the properties at Jaipur i.e. House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. The suit was dismissed.
7. Nothing hinges on this suit as the issue raised in the present appeal is only with reference to the partition of the property.
8. The High Court vide common Judgment dated 18.09.2007 decided the aforesaid three appeals. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.309 of 2001 was dismissed as infructuous.
9. Insofar as S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 is concerned, it is evident that the issue sought to be raised was with reference to the rights of the daughters in the property. The same was decided against the appellants and two daughters were held entitled to share in the properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral.
10. The issue raised in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481 of 2005 was with reference to gold jewelry and silver items. The preliminary decree of the Trial Court in that regard was modified. This is also not a matter of consideration in the present appeal.
11. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, an approved Valuer was appointed for valuation of the properties to be partitioned who submitted his report dated 08.08.2008 with reference to Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota.
12. Final decree5[In Civil Case No. 17 of 2006] was passed by the Trial Court on 03.01.2009. As per the details given by the Valuer with reference to Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, the appellant no.1 was held entitled to Portion-A on ground floor and the common portion attached thereto. The Appellant No.2 was held entitled to Portion-B on ground floor and common portion attached thereto. The Respondent No.2 was held entitled to Po
