Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court Deputationists Have No Vested Right to Continue in Borrowing Department: Andhra Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court: Male Children Can't Claim Maintenance Post-Majority Under PWDV Act A Right Once Accrued Cannot Be Retrospectively Barred by Amended Limitation Provisions: Supreme Court Assessment order under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act declared void due to lack of proper authorization and adherence to Section 153C procedures: P&H High Court Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Convert Civil Disputes Into Criminal Allegations Without Prima Facie Evidence: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Employer-Employee Dispute Marriage Lasted 3 Days, But Dowry Harassment Proved Beyond Doubt—Conviction Upheld Under Section 498A IPC: Supreme Court Election Petition Dismissed: Petitioner Fails to Establish Locus Standi and Cause of Action: Punjab & Haryana High Court

All Co-sharers Must Render Accounts or Contribute Rent, Supreme Court Emphasizes in Landmark Partition Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court overturns High Court ruling, stressing equitable contribution in joint property disputes

The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment delivered on July 23, 2024, has clarified the obligations of co-sharers in a property partition suit regarding the rendition of accounts. The ruling, issued by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, underscores that all co-sharers, irrespective of their usage of the property, must render accounts or contribute rent for their respective shares. This judgment overturns the High Court’s decision that had exempted certain co-sharers from rendering accounts.

The case originated from a suit for partition filed by Rajinder Kaur (deceased) through her legal heir Usha, seeking partition of a jointly owned property. The property was initially owned by ten co-sharers, with subsequent sales leading to a complex ownership structure involving 11 co-sharers. The plaintiff requested partition by metes and bounds or, if not feasible, sale by auction, along with an account of rents collected by certain defendants. The Trial Court had ordered the property to be sold by auction and directed all co-sharers to render accounts. This decision was partially challenged, leading to appeals and subsequent rulings by the First Appellate Court and the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that co-sharers, irrespective of whether they were generating income from the property or occupying it for personal use, must render accounts or contribute rent. The judgment noted, “The Trial Court had rightly directed all parties to render accounts either for the rent collected by them or for the portion in their possession for which the rent was assessed.”

The bench criticized the High Court for misdirecting itself by exempting co-sharers from rendering accounts. The judgment stated, “The High Court misdirected itself in recording the finding that the defendant No.3(a)-S.C. Bhalla, being in self-occupation of part of the property, will not be liable to render any accounts.”

The Court extensively discussed the principles of equity in partition suits, emphasizing that all co-sharers must contribute to the common kitty. The judgment elaborated, “Had their business been carried on in a rented premises, they would have certainly paid some rent. Therefore, they must be held liable to contribute to the common kitty for the property in their possession beyond their share.”

Justice Rajesh Bindal remarked, “There was no good reason for the High Court to have absolved [defendant No.3(a)] from rendition of accounts. This matter will require examination by the Trial Court in the course of passing the final decree.”

The Supreme Court’s judgment mandates that all co-sharers must render accounts or contribute rent for their respective shares, ensuring a fair distribution of income from the joint property. This ruling is expected to streamline the resolution of similar disputes, emphasizing the principle that personal use of the property does not exempt co-sharers from their financial obligations to other owners. The Trial Court has been directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case within nine months.

 

Date of Decision: July 23, 2024

Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Usha vs. Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) Through LRS Upinder Kaur and Others

Similar News