Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 559
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
Lt. Col. B.M. Khosla
Versus
Col. S.K. Khosla (Retd.) & Others
RFA (OS) No. 53 of 2013
Decided On : 21-02-2014
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Partition and Sale of Properties
Act Referred
Headnote
litigation - Property Dispute - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - [Section 2(15), Article 45 of Schedule 1] - The court discussed the applicability of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, particularly Section 2(15) and Article 45 of Schedule 1, in the context of a suit for partition and sale of properties. The court emphasized the need for stamping the final decree for partition in accordance with the law and highlighted the issues related to the sale of properties and the payment of stamp duty. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and its interpretation of the requirements for final decree and stamp duty payment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged an order dated August 28, 2012, related to a suit for partition and sale of properties. The appellant disputed the ownership of the properties and sought to set aside the sale of two properties. The litigation involved a protracted dispute among family members over the partition of properties and the execution of wills.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's litigious attitude and frivolous objections had obstructed the implementation of the preliminary decree for partition. The court noted that the properties were not HUF properties and dismissed the appellant's challenges to the sale of the properties. The court also dismissed the appellant's objections regarding the sale of the properties, emphasizing that it was too late to challenge the sales. The court imposed costs on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership of the properties, the validity of wills, the partition of properties, and the objections raised by the appellant regarding the sale of properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the properties were not HUF properties and that the appellant's objections to the sale of properties were unfounded. The court emphasized that the appellant's repeated challenges to the sale of properties were frivolous and imposed costs on the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upheld the sale of properties, and imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000 on the appellant for filing a frivolous appeal.
For the Petitioner: in person.
For the Respondents:R1, Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate with Ashish Garg, R3, G. Kandpal, G. Joshi, Advocates.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The undernoted chart is indicative of the litigative attitude of the appellant. He has lost at every stage. But his appetite for litigation does not come to an end. The chart we have just referred to would be as under:-
2. Instant appeal challenges the order dated August 28, 2012. It reads as under:-
Case No. Particulars Date of disposal
C.R.P.No.621/2001 B.M.K.Khosla vs. Trustees Employees Provident Fund 13.9.2001
C.R.P.No.622/201 B.M.K.Khosla vs. Trustees Employees Provident Fund 13.9.2001
C.R.P.No.623/2001 B.M.K.Khosla vs. Trustees Employees Provident Fund 13.9.2001
C.R.P.No.624/2001 B.M.K.Khosla vs. Trustees Employees Provident Fund 13.9.2001
C.R.P.No.625/2001 B.M.K.Khosla vs. Trustees Employees Provident Fund 13.9.2001
FAO(OS) 296/2003 B.M.K.Khosla vs.Raj Kumar Khosla 22.10.2003
FAO(OS) 257/204 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla 29.11.2004
FAO(OS) 55/204 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 6.4.2004
FAO(OS) 152/2007 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 15.5.2007
FAO(OS) 187/2007 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 5.7.2007
FAO(OS) 218/2007 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 12.2.2009
FAO(OS) 335/2007 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 3.9.2007
FAO(OS) 3/2008 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors 9.4.2008
FAO(OS) 418/2008 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 7.2.2008
FAO(OS) 65/2008 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla & Ors. 11.2.2008
WP(C) 11094/2009 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Registrar General Delhi High Court & Ors. 1.2.2010
WP(C) 7806/2009 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi &Ors. 16.9.2009
FAO(OS) 26/2009LPA No.328/2009 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla &Ors.
Lt.Col.B.M.Khosla 230.1.2009
Vs.Lt.Governor of Delhi &Ors. 22.9.2009
LPA 302/2011 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Registrar General Delhi High Court & Ors. 12.7.2010
FAO(OS) 149/2011 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khosla vs. Raj Kumar Khosla &Ors. 4.4.2011
CS(OS) 1890/2011 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khoslavs.DDA 20.4.2012
RFA(OS) 56/2012 Lt.Col.B.M.K.Khoslavs.DDA 22.5.2012
2. Instant appeal challenges the order dated August 28, 2012. It reads as under:-
“1. In a suit for partition, a preliminary decree declares the shares of the parties. Thereafter a final decree is passed by which a suit is disposed of. A final decree for partition is an instrument of partition under Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Final decree therefore will have to be stamped in accordance with law, i.e. Article 45 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Issues with regard to sale of the properties will be issues in execution proceedings.
2. In the present case, the parties agree and as recorded in the order dated 12.10.1999, that the properties in question have to be sold. Once it is agreed that the properties cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds and have to be sold, a final decree will have to be passed at this stage and necessary stamp duty in terms of Article 45 of Schedule I of the India Stamp Act, 1899, has to be paid before further proceedings are taken for sale of the property.
3. In the present case, I understand two of the properties, i.e. one at Vasant Vihar, Delhi and another at Jalandhar, Punjab have been sold after the preliminary decree without the final decree being drawn up.
4. It is therefore directed that firstly a final decree be drawn out and necessary stamp duty be paid before further proceedings are taken with respect to sale of the balance properties, and which sale will take place in execution proceedings. So far as the properties which have already been sold since the price at which the properties have been sold are on record, such sale value will be taken as a value with respect to preparing a final decree for partition and payment of stamp duty with respect to the properties which are sold. With respect to the properties not sold, the procedure as prescribed by law be adopted for valuing of such properties and for paying of stamp duty on the same. The total stamp duty which wo
