Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne, J.
Vijay Shivram Pathare - Appellant
Versus
City Corporation Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1971, 1973 of 2022, Interim Application No. 19386 of 2022
Decided On : 13-09-2023
SUCCESSION - DISPUTE OVER ESTATE - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEC. 54 - The court discussed the application of Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that partition of an estate assessed to revenue must be executed by the Collector or a designated officer. The court interpreted this provision to mean that disputes regarding succession to a deceased decree-holder's estate must be resolved in civil court, especially when conflicting claims arise among heirs. The court emphasized that the Tehsildar's role is limited to executing the preliminary decree without adjudicating on the rights of the parties involved, thus influencing the decision to uphold the Minister's order directing that the matter be resolved in civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute between Vijay and Deepak, grandsons of Anjanabai, over her estate following her death. Anjanabai had previously been involved in a partition suit, and both grandsons claim rights to her share based on conflicting wills. The Tehsildar had initially awarded possession of Anjanabai's share to Vijay, but this decision was challenged by Deepak's successor, leading to a series of appeals through various revenue authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tehsildar's order was improperly challenged before revenue authorities instead of the executing court. It concluded that the dispute over succession rights should be resolved in civil court, where multiple related proceedings were already pending, thus upholding the Minister's order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the dispute over succession to Anjanabai's estate could be resolved by revenue authorities or if it must be adjudicated in civil court, given the conflicting claims of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that disputes regarding the rights of heirs or successors to a deceased decree-holder's estate must be determined by the civil court, particularly when conflicting claims arise. It referenced the precedent set in Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, affirming that a second preliminary decree can be issued in partition suits to resolve such disputes.
Final Decision: The court upheld the Minister's order, directing that the entitlement of the parties to Anjanabai's estate be decided in the pending civil suits, and ordered the transfer of related cases to a single court for resolution.
The court's decision emphasizes that disputes concerning the succession to a deceased decree-holder's estate must be resolved in a civil court, especially when there are conflicting claims among heirs or successors-in-title (!) (!) . The role of revenue authorities, such as Tehsildar or Collector, is limited to executing the preliminary decree for partition and does not extend to adjudicating on the rights of heirs or successors (!) (!) .
The judgment clarifies that the proceedings initiated before revenue authorities or revenue courts are not the appropriate forum for resolving disputes over succession rights. Instead, such disputes should be determined by the civil courts that originally passed the decree or are already handling related civil proceedings (!) (!) . The court highlights that the order passed by the revenue authorities or their nominees in the context of executing a preliminary decree is not final and does not settle the rights of the parties (!) .
Furthermore, the court affirms that multiple preliminary decrees can be passed in a partition suit if circumstances change, such as the death of decree holders or disputes among heirs. This allows the civil court to amend or reframe the decree to reflect the true entitlement of heirs or successors (!) (!) (!) .
In the specific case, the court acknowledges that the dispute between the parties over the estate of the deceased, Anjanabai, is a matter for civil courts to decide. It rejects the contention that the revenue authorities or Tehsildar can determine the rights of Vijay, Deepak, or City Corporation Ltd. to Anjanabai’s estate (!) .
The court also notes that there are multiple civil proceedings already pending, which are more appropriate forums for resolving the entitlement issues. It directs that these proceedings be consolidated and decided by a single civil court to avoid conflicting judgments (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court upholds the order of the Minister-Revenue but directs that the substantive issue of entitlement to the estate be decided in civil courts where the related disputes are already pending. The revenue authorities' role is confined to executing the civil court’s decrees, not adjudicating rights among heirs or successors (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Sandeep V. Marne,J. - In a case where a dispute arises between claimants about succession to the estate allotted to a deceased decree-holder in a suit for partition, which forum would resolve such dispute and what would be the correct remedy to be adopted for resolution of such dispute are the issues which I am tasked upon to decide in this Petition.
2. The issues arise in the context of a challenge raised by the Petitioner-Vijay Shivram Pathare to the order dtd. 17/3/2021 passed by the Minister-Revenue, who has upheld the orders of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Additional Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer. Those revenue authorities had set aside Tehsildar's Order carving out share of deceased decree holder-Anjanabai and handing over possession thereof in favour of Petitioner. Both Petitioner-Vijay and his brother-Deepak claim right to succeed to the estate of Anjanabai. Respondent No. 1 is the successor-in-title of Deepak, who felt that Tehsildar's decision in handing over Anjanabai's share to Vijay pursuant to receipt of precept from Civil Court could be challenged before various revenue authorities. As against this, it is Vijay's contention that the correct remedy for Deepak's successor-in-title was to move the Executing Court for raising an objection to the Tehsildar's Order. Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contends that since substantive civil proceedings are pending between the parties, the issue of right to succeed to Anjanabai's estate can be decided in those proceedings and therefore Tehsildar's Order needed to be set aside by higher revenue authorities.
3. For better understating of the controversy between rival parties, narration of checkered history of the case would be necessary. Anjanabai Dinkar Dhamdhere and Shantabai Wamanrao Sable were real sisters, who instituted Regular Civil Suit No.943 of 1987 against Yashwant Maruti Lonkar for partition of suit properties claiming 3/5th share in the same. They also filed another Suit bearing R.C.S. No.1141 of 1987 for settlement of accounts of suit properties. The suit properties comprised lands bearing Survey No.31/2/8 adm. 01 H. 96 R and Survey No.26/8C/9/10 admeasuring 03 H. 8 R at Mundhwa, Keshavnagar, Pune. Both the suits were decreed by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune on 31/7/1997 declaring that Plaintiffs-Anjanabai and Shantabai are entitled for possession of their 3/5th share in suit property with a further direction to separate the shares from suit property and grant possession to them as per Sec. 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code). The Defendant therein was also directed to pay Rs.450.00 to Plaintiffs towards mesne profit with further direction to conduct inquiry for further amount of mesne profit. Preliminary decree was passed in R.C.S. No.943 of 1997 in respect of accounts.
4. Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar filed Civil Appeal Nos. 911 of 1997 and 912 of 1997 before the District Court, Pune challenging the decree. By judgment and order dtd. 4/9/2001, the appeals were dismissed. The Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar filed Second Appeal Nos.61 of 2002 and 62 of 2002 before this Court which came to be dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dtd. 10/6/2013. Special Leave Petitions filed by the Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar were also dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dtd. 21/10/2013. Review Petition Nos.1219 of 2014 and 1220 of 2014 filed by Defendant Yashwant Maruti Lonkar were also rejected by the Supreme Court by order in the year 2014. The Curative Petitions were also dismissed on 23/2/2016. This is how decree passed by Trial Court on 31/7/1997 attained finality.
5. Petitioner-Vijay Shivram Pathare and Respondent Deepak Shivram Pathare are real brothers and grandsons of Plaintiff Anjanabai. For the sake of brevity, Petitioner is referred as 'Vijay' Respondent No.2 is referred as 'Deepak' and Plaintiff in the suit is referred as 'Anjanabai'.
6. Deepak claims that Anjanabai executed a Will on 22/12/2004 beq
AI
The court established that disputes over succession to a deceased decree-holder's estate must be resolved in civil court, and that revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matt....
A legal heir is bound by the actions of the common ancestor and cannot challenge them.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Civil Court's power in executing partition and delivering possession in cases of partition of agricultural land, as clarified....
A partition suit concludes with the final decree, and parties cannot seek modification of shares based on subsequent legislative changes after the final decree is passed.
A final decree is required before executing a partition, and parties must be granted a hearing to present objections as per the relevant rules.
Subsequent purchasers of property cannot independently challenge a partition decree that has attained finality; their rights are limited to those of the transferor.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a recall application from a non-party after a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, as it becomes functus officio.
Recall of decree – Inherent power may be exercised to undo result achieved by practising fraud upon court – But, if fraud is played upon party, they have to resort to provisions available under law t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
