SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 602

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Usha – Appellant
Versus
Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs Upinder Kaur And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7946-7947 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 12198-12199 of 2018)
Decided on : 23-07-2024

Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Adv. M/S. Delhi Law Chambers, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Sonam Anand, Adv. Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sahil Patel, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Batra, AOR Mr. Dhawal Pratap Singh Ahluwalia, Adv. Mr. Rhythm Katyal, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Chawla, Adv. Ms. Archna Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Arora, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Chhabra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Partition Suit – At the time of passing of preliminary decree declaring rights of several parties interested in property, Court may give such further directions as may be required.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XX Rule 18(2) – Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 – Partition Suit – Preliminary decree – As property could not be partitioned on account of legal bar under Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960, same was directed to be auctioned – Preliminary decree was also passed for rendition of accounts against defendants wherein all co-sharers of suit property were directed to render accounts – At the time of passing of preliminary decree declaring rights of several parties interested in property, Court may give such further directions as may be required – Trial Court had rightly directed all parties to render accounts either for rent collected by them or for portion in their possession for which monthly rent was assessed – A simple suit for partition is pending for about two decades despite direction issued by Apex Court to decide suit within nine months – Since it is admitted case of defendant himself that he had rented out a portion of property and collected rent therefrom, there was no good reason for High Court to have absolved him from rendition of accounts – After sale of property if any of co-sharers fail to contribute any amount to common kitty for distribution amongst all co-sharers as determined by Trial Court, distribution of amount so collected after sale of property shall be reduced to that extent from share of that co-sharer – Impugned judgments passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 12, 21, 23 and 24)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise out of a suit for partition filed by appellant for partition of property jointly owned at that time by appellant-plaintiff and respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 9. Defendant Nos.10 to 14 were impleaded in the suit as they were stated to be tenants on part of property.

Findings of Court:

Matter is pending at the stage of passing of preliminary decree for last about two decades that too in a case where share of parties is not in dispute. Only dispute was with reference to rendition of accounts by two of co-sharers. Issues regarding whom have been dealt with in this Judgment Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings and dispose of the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of a suit for partition1[ Civil Suit No. 4406 of 2005] filed by the appellant for partition of the property jointly owned at that time by the appellant-plaintiff and respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 9. Defendant Nos.10 to 14 were impleaded in the suit as they were stated to be tenants on the part of the property. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court2[Civil Judge (Junior Division), U.T. Chandigarh] respondent-defendant No.3, Bhupinder Singh, having sold his share to S.C. Bhalla, he was impleaded as defendant No.3(a). Further, defendant Nos.6 to 9 having sold their shares to the subsequent buyers, who were impleaded as defendant Nos.15 to 19.

3. After the amendments were carried out in the plaint, considering the subsequent events and impleadment of subsequent buyers, the final prayer was for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds and in case not possible, sale thereof by open auction and distribution of the sale proceeds amongst the co-sharers. Prayer was also made for directing the defendant Nos. 3 to 9 to furnish accounts of rent collected by them from tenants and a direction to the tenants (defendant Nos.10 to 14) to deposit the rent in the court. Further, the plaintiff sought direction against defendant No.3-Bhupinder Singh to pay mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square ft. per month for the area under his occupation. The present litigation is at the stage of passing of preliminary decree. The percentage of shares of the plaintiff and the defendants originally impleaded in the suit, to which no dispute has been raised by the parties before this Court, have been noticed by the High Court3[High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] in the impugned judgment dated 05.04.20184[Passed in RSA No. 6076 of 2015]. The same is extracted below:

S. NO.

NAME OF OWNER

SHAREHOLDING

1.

Rajinder Kaur (Plaintiff)

25%

2.

Gurbhajan Kaur (Defendant No. 1)

12.5%

3.

Prabhasharan Singh Sandhu (Defendant No. 2)

12.5%

4.

Bhupinder Singh (Defendant No. 3)

1%

5.

Ajay Aggarwal (Defendant No. 4)

17%

6.

Neelam Aggarwal (Defendant No. 5)

17%

7.

Amarnath Singla (Defendant No. 6)

3.75%

8.

Laxmi Devi (Defendant No. 7)

3.75%

9.

Meena Singla (Defendant No. 8)

3.75%

10.

Seema Rani (Defendant No. 9)

3.75%

4. The aforesaid position was before the sale of their respective shares by defendant No.3-Bhupinder Singh to defendant No.3(a)-S.C. Bhalla and by defendant Nos.6 to 9 to defendant Nos.15 to 19. Preliminary decree for partition of the suit property to the extent of 25% share was passed by the Trial Court on 10.10.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. As the property could not be partitioned on account of legal bar under the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 19605 [Hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules], the same was directed to be auctioned. The preliminary decree was also passed for rendition of accounts against the defendants wherein all the co-sharers of the suit property were directed to render accounts. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 having inducted tenants in some portion of the suit property in their possession were directed to submit the accounts of rent collected by them. The market rate of the rent of the portions in possession of defendant no.3(a)-S.C. Bhalla and defendant Nos.15 to 19 were to be determined while passing the final decree. Defendant No.3(a) having stepped into the shoes of defendant No.3, defendant Nos.4 & 5, and defendant Nos.15 to 19, having stepped into the shoes of defendant Nos.6 to 9, were restrained from creating charge or encumbrances on the suit property.

5. Challenging the aforesaid preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, two appeals were filed. Civil Appeal No. 857 of 2012 was filed by defendant No.3(a), and Civil Appeal No. 850 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top