GITA MITTAL, J.

“For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., Satya (truth) and Ahimsa (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.... In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” (Ref.: Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114)

1. The instant appeal challenging the order dated 15th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge directing issuance of the sale certificate manifests the dishonest extremes to which an unscrupulous litigant can use and exploit the judicial processes in order to perpetuate the occupation of a valuable property in a posh colony. When the suit property is of the nature of the suit property being W-152, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (except its first floor), it is obviously difficult to let go. However, neither the methodology adopted by the appellants in the present case of filing this appeal (challenging a sale certificate confirming the sale after a public auction with the total consent and active participation of the appellants) nor the end, is either fair or justified. It is certainly completely malafide and, most importantly, contrary to law.

We propose to decide the issues pressed before us in the following manner :

I. Factual Matrix (paras 2 to 33)

II. Plaintiff cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time – application of the doctrine of estoppel by election (paras 34 to 60)

III. What is the effect of sale by a co-owner of specific portion of joint property, which the other co-owner say has not been partitioned? (paras 61 to 109)

IV. Objections of the appellants that mandatory procedure under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act has not been followed (paras 110 to 168)

V. Submission that plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint was pending – effect thereof (paras 169 to 180)

VI. Appellant's submissions that jurisdiction on a court cannot be conferred by consent, acquiescence, waiver, estoppel (paras 181 to 205)

VII. How is the court to proceed after dismissing objection to an auction (paras 206 to 217)

VIII. The plaintiffs have failed to pay costs awarded on them (paras 218 to 221)

IX. Costs (paras 222 to 259)

X. Result (para 260)

We discuss the above issues in seriatum hereafter : I. Factual Matrix

2. Before dealing with the rival contentions, we may usefully set down some essential facts. The plot of land bearing no.W-152, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi admeasuring 500 sqr.yrds. was purchased by Shri R.R. Kumria on the 17th of November 1960. Shri R.R. Kumria expired intestate on the 22nd of May 1962 and was survived by his widow – Smt. Savitri Kumria; two sons – Shri S.P. Kumria and Shri Sudershan Kumria and, two daughters – Urmila Kalia and Nirmala Sirba.

3. Smt. Savitri (widow of Shri R.R. Kumria) also expired on the 25th of May 1972 without leaving any will or testament.

4. On the 18th of June 1979, Smt. Urmila Kumria and Nirmala Sirba (daughters of Late Shri R.R. Kumria) executed a relinquishment deed of their share in the suit property in favour of their two brothers - Shri. S.P. Kumria