Back
2021 Supreme(Ker) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.Somarajan, J.
M.V. Geetha and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
M.V.Shery and Ors. – Respondents
RFA NO. 575 OF 2017 (H)
Decided On : 23-09-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.V.V.Surendran, Sri.P.A.Harish, Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, Sri.V.A.Satheesh, Advs.
Point of law : A request of any of the share holders interested individually or collectively in the property in the suit to the extent of one moiety or upwards for the sale of property and its distribution is a sine qua non for directing a sale. But the request for sale envisaged by Section 2 of the Act must be one for public sale
Headnote:
Partition Act, 1893 - Sections 2 and 3 - Decree for partition - Equal shares by metes and bounds - Based on a preliminary decree for partition into seven equal shares by metes and bounds, a final decree was passed granting an “owelty” of to mother out of her due share of land, which is under challenge - It appears that trial court has committed a grave mistake while ordering “owelty” of towards share of mother instead of dividing property of of land into seven equal shares and thereby taken away very concept of “principle of owelty” and requirement to be complied with under Sections 2 and 3 of Partition Act, 1893 –
Finding of the court : Matter is remanded back to trial court for passing final decree in accordance with law in forceIt is very strange that “owelty” ordered in instant case comes to though subject of partition comes to, which is sought to be partitioned into seven equal shares by metes and bounds. Instead of dividing landed property by metes and bounds into seven equal shares, an amount of was substituted towards share of mother. Court would show high injustice suffered by one of sharers at final decree stage – Court it is found not feasible to effect a partition, any of co-sharers can apply to put moiety share for sale. - Moiety would come into play, only when Sections 2 and 3 of Partition Act is applied for effecting sale of property when partition by metes and bounds found to be not possible or practicable. Moiety means generally half value or more either individually or collectively for purchase of share by exhausting the benefit under Section 3 of Act. After determination of shares of parties, -
Result : Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Based on a preliminary decree for partition into seven equal shares by metes and bounds, a final decree was passed granting an “owelty” of Rs.27 lakhs to the mother out of her due share over 6.5 Acres of land, which is under challenge.
2. It appears that the trial court has committed a grave mistake while ordering “owelty” of Rs.27 lakhs towards the share of mother instead of dividing the property of 6.5 Acres of land into seven equal shares and thereby taken away the very concept of “principle of owelty” and the requirement to be complied with under Sections 2 and 3 of The Partition Act, 1893.
3. It is not legally permissible to substitute money in the place of landed property while effecting partition by metes and bounds, except by way of “owelty” or moiety. The expression “owelty” stands for compensation to be given so as to adjust inequality of shares in a partition when allotment of equal shares found to be not workable, practicable or possible. Some times, while effecting partition, it will not be possible to divide the property by metes and bounds. A division of property must be effected without causing destruction to the intrinsic value of the property and it should be minimized to the negligible extent. If that is not possible, then only a division of property without affecting the instrinsic value of the property is permissible, though it will result in unequal shares, which can be adjusted by ordering “owelty”. The very principle behind it is to preserve the property with its intrinsic value to the possible extent without causing destruction while effecting partition by metes and bounds. When partition by metes and bounds is not possible without causing destruction to the intrinsic value of property, the method of “owelty” can be applied viz., by substituting money in the place of property to the extent of making it equitable. That does not mean that instead of giving property, money can be substituted by ordering payment of value of the share. Further, a deviation from the final decree in the allotment of share by applying the principle of “owelty” can be done only when a division by metes and bounds becomes impracticable or impossible while maintaining the intrinsic value of the property, for which neither Section 2 nor Section 3 of the Partition Act is applicable. Necessarily, when large extent of property is involved and the division to be effected is lesser in number, it would not make the division by metes and bounds, either impracticable or impossible, wherein, the court cannot order division of unequal shares by providing “owelty”, otherwise it would result in destruction of the very purpose and concept of “principle of owelty” and partition by metes and bounds. “Owelty” is really a practical solution available with the court to effect a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree to the possible extent when division by metes and bounds found to be not convenient or practicable without causing destruction of the intrinsic value of the property.
4. A court sale of the property under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 can be resorted to only when it appears by reason of nature of the property to which the partition to be effected or of the number of share holders therein or of any other special circumstances, a division of property cannot be reasonably or conveniently be made. Like wise, the benefit conferred under Section 3 of the Act to purchase the share of others by any sharer would come into play only when a sale was ordered under Section 2 of the Act. The condition enumerated therein are condition precedent so as to bring the matter within the sweep of either Section 2 or Section 3 of the Act. In the absence of any such conditions precedent, it is well within the jurisdiction of the court to adopt and apply any equitable method for division of property without the re-course under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, when a division by metes and bounds found to be not feasible. The method that
