Delhi High Court Clarifies Shares in Property Partition, Appoints Local Commissioner for Equitable Distribution

Share:
tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a significant development in the ongoing property partition matter, the Delhi High Court has clarified the earlier judgment, ensuring a fair division of property between the involved parties. The Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, has ordered the appointment of a Local Commissioner to facilitate an equitable partition.

Legal Point of Judgement:

The court addressed the application for clarification and consequential action following its judgment dated January 10, 2024, in the property partition case involving property at C-316, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The application was centered around Section 151, 152, Order 47, Order 20 Rule 18, Order 26 Rule 13 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC).

Facts and Issues:

The appellant, Santosh Bhasin, sought clarification of the High Court’s judgment, which had set aside the earlier judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge in CS No. 382/09/95. The key issues were the appointment of a Local Commissioner for the division of the property, and the determination of the parties’ shares.

Court Assessment:

The Court emphasized the difference between judicial function in determining shares in a partition suit and the ministerial act of dividing property. It was highlighted that a final decree following a preliminary decree is necessary for effective partition. The Court also addressed the maintainability of the application under Section 151 CPC, stating that procedural misnomenclature should not obstruct justice.

Decision:The Court allowed the application under Section 151 CPC, restoring the appeal (RFA No. 830/2010) for further consideration. It directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to oversee the partition, with assistance from an experienced architect, to ensure equal distribution of the property.

Date of Decision: March 11, 2024

Santosh Bhasin vs. Umari Malhotra Decd Thr LRS

Download Judgment

Share: