Executing Court Must Conduct Full-Fledged Inquiry Under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC When Third-Party Objects To Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Lapse Of University Cannot Penalize Student By Denying Verification Of Academic Credentials: Supreme Court Professional Colleges Cannot Effect Mid-Course Fee Hikes; Fee Must Be Determined Before Admission Under AICTE Regulations: Supreme Court Compromise Decrees Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Must Be Given Full Effect, Courts Cannot Ignore Binding Settlements: Supreme Court Auction Of Public Resources | Rejection Of Highest Bid Requires Material Demonstrating Current Inadequacy And Cannot Rely Merely On Earlier Higher Bids: Supreme Court Section 19 PMLA | 'Immediately' In Section 19(2) Does Not Prescribe Fixed Timeline For Forwarding Arrest Material To Adjudicating Authority: Supreme Court Labour Court Must Grant Employer Opportunity To Lead Fresh Evidence After Domestic Inquiry Is Declared Unfair: Allahabad High Court Prosecution Permitted To Produce Additional Documents Under Section 242 CrPC Even At Trial Stage To Ensure Truth: Andhra Pradesh High Court Income Tax Act | Generation Of Surplus Does Not Disqualify Hospital From Philanthropic Exemption If Funds Are Applied To Charitable Objects: Bombay High Court Commercial Courts Act 2015 | Pre-Litigation Mediation Under Section 12A Is Not Mandatory In Urgent IP Infringement Suits: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Defence Witnesses Are Entitled To Equal Weightage As Prosecution Witnesses To Rebut Statutory Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Sessions Court Cannot Sentence Accused To Life Imprisonment 'Till Death' To Bar Remission Under Section 432 CrPC; Only Constitutional Courts Can: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail | Merely Because Criminal Culpability Cannot Be Ruled Out In Civil Dispute, Pre-Arrest Bail Need Not Be Cancelled If Accused Cooperated: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Investigation By Subordinate When SHO Is Informant Vitiates Trial For IPC Offences & Section 25 Arms Act: Allahabad High Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 54 Wakf Act | Long Possession Confers No Right To Continue In Occupation If Encroachment Is Unauthorized: Himachal Pradesh High Court Special Court Cannot Direct Reinvestigation Under Guise Of Further Investigation When Accused Exonerated In Departmental Probe: J&K&L High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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