Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order in Property Partition Dispute: M/s Multicon Builders vs. Sumandevi (2023)

Date of the Judgment: November 6, 2023

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a third party, not a family member, interfere with a preliminary decree in a property partition suit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, modifying an order of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. The core issue revolved around a challenge to a preliminary decree by a party claiming rights through a co-sharer, despite not being a family member. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, with the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by Sheela, the widow of Narendra Fiske, seeking declaration, partition, and separate possession of family property. In response, a counterclaim was filed by defendants 1, 4 to 8. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on February 27, 2012, determining the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. This decree also restrained the defendants from alienating the property until a final partition. Defendant no. 9, M/s Multicon Builders, the appellant, was declared to have no right, title, or claim to the property and was directed to demolish constructions made in violation of municipal laws. The preliminary decree was not challenged by the plaintiff or defendants 1 to 8. Only defendant no. 9 appealed the Trial Court’s order to the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree in a partition suit, determining the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8, and restraining them from alienating the property. Defendant No. 9, the appellant, who was not a family member, challenged this decree in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal but modified the order to direct defendants 2 and 9 to demolish the construction on the suit plot. The Supreme Court heard the matter in appeal against the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the process of property partition and the rights of parties involved in such suits. It touches upon the concept of a preliminary decree in a partition suit, which determines the shares of the parties, and the final decree, which divides the property by metes and bounds. The case also indirectly refers to municipal laws concerning unauthorized construction, though the Court does not delve into the specifics of these laws.

Arguments

Appellant’s (M/s Multicon Builders) Arguments:

• The appellant claimed that respondent no. 2, Chandrashekhar Deshmukh, had transferred his share of the property to him.
• The appellant argued that their rights were adversely affected by the preliminary decree, as they had invested a significant amount in constructing on the plot.
• The appellant contended that the demolition order was not in the interest of any of the parties.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant was not a family member and therefore had no right to challenge the preliminary decree.
• The respondents contended that the preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the co-sharers and hence, the appellant had no locus standi.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in the sense that it tried to assert rights based on a transfer from a co-sharer, despite not being a family member, and sought to protect their investment in construction.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether a non-family member could challenge the preliminary decree in a partition suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment. The decision was based on the general principles of property law and the procedure for partition suits.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the co-sharers (family members). The Court also considered the practical aspect of the matter, noting that demolition of existing structures might not be in the interest of any party. The Court aimed to ensure that all aspects, including the construction and the claims of the appellant, are considered at the stage of the final decree.

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis: The Court’s decision was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%). The legal principles of who can challenge a preliminary decree and the process of partition were central to the decision.

The Court reasoned that since the preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the co-sharers, the appellant, who was not a family member, could not challenge it at this stage. The Court also considered that demolishing the construction might not be in the interest of the parties and that all aspects could be considered during the final decree. The Court’s reasoning was based on the procedural aspects of partition suits and the rights of the parties involved.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The court held that the preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the co-sharers and hence the appellant had no locus standi to challenge the same. The court also considered the fact that the demolition of the building may not be in the interest of the parties and hence modified the order to allow the trial court to consider the same in the final decree.

The decision was that the High Court’s order was modified to the extent that the Trial Court would consider all aspects, including the construction, while passing the final decree. The Court emphasized that the demolition of the existing buildings may not be in the interest of the parties and that the Trial Court should consider the construction, authorized by the local authority, during the final decree.

“The preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court in a partition suit as upheld by the High Court, does not deserve interference by this Court as admittedly there is no challenge to the same by any of the co-sharers (family members) of the property in dispute with reference to their respective shares.”

“In our view, demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties as the same can be considered at the time of passing of final decree, with reference to the construction, authorised by the local authority.”

“We may clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.”

There were no majority or minority opinions as the judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• A non-family member claiming rights through a co-sharer cannot challenge a preliminary decree in a partition suit if the co-sharers themselves have not challenged it.
• Courts may modify orders to prevent unnecessary demolition of existing structures and ensure all aspects are considered during the final decree.
• Final decrees in partition suits should consider all aspects, including existing constructions and claims of all parties.

Directions

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the case and proceed further for passing the final decree.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a non-family member cannot challenge a preliminary decree in a partition suit if the co-sharers have not challenged it. The decision clarifies that courts should consider all aspects, including existing constructions, during the final decree to avoid unnecessary demolition and protect the interests of all parties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, emphasizing that while a non-family member cannot challenge a preliminary decree in a partition suit if the co-sharers have not done so, the Trial Court should consider all aspects, including existing constructions, during the final decree. This decision ensures that the final decree is equitable and considers all relevant factors.

Category

Parent Category: Property Law

Child Category: Partition Suits

Child Category: Preliminary Decree

Child Category: Final Decree

Parent Category: Civil Procedure

Child Category: Appeals

Parent Category: Property Law

Child Category: Transfer of Property

FAQ

Q: Can a person who is not a family member challenge a preliminary decree in a property partition suit?

A: Generally, no. If the family members (co-sharers) have not challenged the preliminary decree, a non-family member cannot challenge it.

Q: What is a preliminary decree in a partition suit?

A: A preliminary decree determines the shares of the parties in the property. It is followed by a final decree, which divides the property by metes and bounds.

Q: What happens to constructions made on the property before the final decree?

A: The court will consider the existing constructions while passing the final decree. Demolition of structures may not be ordered if it is not in the interest of the parties.

Q: What is the meaning of metes and bounds?

A: Metes and bounds refers to the process of dividing the property by physical boundaries and measurements.

Q: What is the next step after a preliminary decree has been passed?

A: The next step is for the court to pass a final decree, which divides the property by metes and bounds. The court will take into account the preliminary decree and any other relevant factors.