Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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

Latest Legal News