Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

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

Similar News