Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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