Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) through Legal Heir Usha vs Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Upinder Kaur and Others
Date: 23 July 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Honorable Justice Rajesh Bindal
Acts and Sections: Order XX Rule 18(2) of C.P.C., Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960
Cited Judgments: Resident’s Welfare Association and Another vs Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2023) 8 SCC 643
Introduction
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on 23 July 2024 in the case of Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) through Legal Heir Usha vs Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) through LRs Upinder Kaur and Others, pertains to a long-standing partition suit involving multiple co-sharers of a property. The appeals revolved around the distribution of shares, liability for rendering accounts, and the appropriate methodology for partition, considering the legal constraints under the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960.
Background of the Case
The initial suit for partition was filed by Rajinder Kaur in Civil Suit No. 4406 of 2005, aiming for partition of jointly owned property. During the proceedings, several shares were sold, adding complexities to the partition process. The Trial Court had initially passed a preliminary decree for partition to the extent of 25% in favour of the plaintiff, with directions for auctioning the property due to legal restrictions on physical partition.
Trial Court's Decree
The Trial Court directed an auction of the property and mandated that accounts of rent collected from tenants be rendered by the defendants. Specifically, defendant No. 3(a) S.C. Bhalla and defendants Nos. 15 to 19, who purchased shares during the pendency of the suit, were to render accounts or contribute mesne profits for the use of the property.
Appeals and High Court's Decision
Defendant No. 3(a) and defendants Nos. 15 to 19 challenged the Trial Court's decree. The First Appellate Court partially upheld and partially dismissed the appeals, relieving defendants Nos. 15 to 19 from the obligation to render accounts, while maintaining the liability of defendant No. 3(a) to do so.
Upon further appeal, the High Court overturned the Trial Court's requirement for both defendant No. 3(a) and defendants Nos. 15 to 19 to render accounts. This decision was based on the High Court's interpretation that these defendants were not in wrongful possession of the property portions they occupied and were not generating income from third-party rentals.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's findings and the objections raised by the appellant. The Court highlighted that an anomalous situation had been created by the High Court's decision, which effectively allowed some co-sharers to use significant portions of the property without contributing to the common kitty, while others who were honest in rendering accounts were at a disadvantage.
The Supreme Court observed:
"The reasoning given by the High Court to absolve defendant No. 3(a) from rendering accounts cannot be legally sustained as he had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner and got the vacant physical possession."
The Supreme Court reinstated the need for both defendant No. 3(a) and defendants Nos. 15 to 19 to render accounts or contribute appropriate rent for the portions they occupied. It emphasized the equitable principle that all co-sharers must share the benefits and burdens of the property proportionally.
Detailed Examination
Defendant No. 3(a) - S.C. Bhalla: The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence presented, including affidavits and rent receipts submitted by defendant No. 3(a). It found inconsistencies and raised doubts about the genuineness of the tenancies claimed by him. The Court also noted that offers made by the plaintiff to rent the portion at much higher rates than claimed by defendant No. 3(a) indicated that the actual rental value was significantly underreported.
Defendants Nos. 15 to 19: The Court held that these defendants, although occupying the property for their business, had to account for the benefits derived from such occupation. It directed that the Trial Court should reassess their share and ensure they contribute appropriately to the common pool, ensuring no undue advantage was taken by any party.
Judicial Reasoning on the Liability of Defendants
In addressing the liability of defendants No. 3(a) and Nos. 15 to 19, the Supreme Court meticulously evaluated the evidence and arguments presented. Honorable Justice Rajesh Bindal noted:
"The High Court misdirected itself in recording the finding that the defendant No. 3(a)-S.C. Bhalla, being in self-occupation of the part of the property, being a co-sharer, will not be liable to render any accounts to arrive at such a conclusion. Reference was made to the fact that his vendor (defendant No. 3-Bhupinder Singh) has contested litigation with the tenant (defendant No. 10-M/s. H.M. Traders) and spent a huge amount thereon."
The Court emphasized that the defendant No. 3(a) had purchased the property from defendant No. 3-Bhupinder Singh after it had already been vacated by the tenant and was handed over vacant physical possession. This pivotal point highlighted that despite any previous litigation costs incurred by the vendor, defendant No. 3(a) was still liable to render accounts for the period he had possession.
Directive for Expedited Proceedings
The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case within nine months from the receipt of the order. The delay in resolving the dispute, given the clarity of the shares among the parties, was deemed unjustifiable. The direction for expedited proceedings reflects the Court’s intent to bring long-pending litigation to a swift and equitable resolution.
"We direct the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's ruling in this case reaffirms the principle that all parties in a partition suit must fairly share both the benefits and burdens associated with the property. By directing the lower court to expedite proceedings and ensure equitable contribution from all co-sharers, the judgment aims to resolve the long-standing dispute efficiently and justly.
The decision also serves as a precedent for future cases involving complex partition suits, particularly where sales and transfers of shares occur during the litigation process. Legal professionals should note the detailed approach taken by the Supreme Court in examining evidence, the emphasis on genuine transactions, and the equitable principles applied in rendering the final decision.
תגובות