Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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).

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.

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

Latest Legal News