Top Court suggests resolution of partition dispute matters by adopting alternate means of mediation and conciliation, dismisses appeal of legal heirs
Justices Rajesh Bindal and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale [03-05-2024]

Read Order: MAHENDRA NATH SORAL & ANOTHER v. RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1980 of 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, May 6, 2024:  While observing that the property dispute matter was lingering on for more than two decades, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the legal heirs and reiterated that the dispute relating to partition amongst family members/coparceners should be settled through alternate means of mediation and conciliation. 

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was considering an appeal which arose out of a dispute between the parties pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late Rameshwar Nath Soral who died in 1996. He was survived by three sons and two daughters. During the pendency of the litigation one of the daughters, Usha Sharma (Usha Soral) died in 2018 and her legal heirs were brought on record.

A suit for partition was filed by the appellant no.1/Mahendra Nath Soral pertaining to the properties left by his late father, impleading his two brothers and two sisters as the defendants. However, in the present appeal the appellants were disputing the partition proceedings only with reference to the roof rights of a Plot situated in Kota. Besides this there was another property also in Jaipur.

The Trial Court passed the preliminary decree holding all the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral entitled to equal shares in the immovable and movable properties. The aforesaid preliminary decree was challenged by Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral by filing Regular First Appeal before the High Court raising a grievance that Usha Sharma and Asha Soral who are daughters of deceased Rameshwar Nath Soral were given dowry items at the time of their respective marriages and they are not entitled to any share in the immovable properties in terms of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was also submitted that Surendra Nath Soral was not in possession of the ornaments, jewelry, gold and silver items.

The third appeal arose out of a suit filed by Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral against Usha Sharma, her husband Mahesh Sharma and her son Mukul Sharma, seeking perpetual injunction with reference to one of the properties at Jaipur. The suit was dismissed. The present appeal was only with reference to the partition of the property.

The appeal before the Top Court was preferred against the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was upheld.. The final decree was challenged by the appellants and another daughter Usha Sharma (now deceased), raising issue regarding valuation of the property and also roof rights of the house, in which the appellants were given two separate portions on the ground floor whereas the two sons were given two separate portions on the first floor along with roof rights. One of the daughters was given a separate house. The High Court did not find merit in the arguments raised by the appellants before the High Court.

The appellants argued that the Valuer had failed to assess the value of the roof rights where further construction could be raised. If that part was taken into consideration, the valuation of the property would change and as a result of which all the four co-sharers of the property would have equal roof rights as well. 

The respondents submitted that the issue was examined threadbare by the Trial Court as well as the High Court and on appropriate valuation of the property, as assessed by the approved Valuer, the shares of the parties were determined. 

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “The case in hand is an example of the bitterness amongst the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral with regard to the partition of the properties left by him. It is properties vs proper ties. Short term gain vs Long terms relations. One can either get share in the properties that too by litigating or can maintain proper ties amongst the family members with little give and take, and not going to the extent of minute details.” 

As per the Bench, it might not be a matter of dispute that none of the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral had contributed anything in acquisition of the plots or construction of the properties by themselves. Whatever was given to them was a kind of bounty but still they being greedy, not satisfied with whatever they received, were litigating for more than two decades.

The partition of property in question amongst the legal heirs was upheld by the High Court. Certain additional rights were given to two legal heirs, namely, Mahendra Nath Soral and Asha Soral, who were allowed shares on the ground floor, whereas roof rights were given to Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral who were granted portions in the first floor. 

The Top Court was of the view that if the argument raised by the appellants was to be accepted at this stage, the same would amount to coming back to square one, where all the properties would have to be revalued for the purpose of partition and this would open a new chapter of litigation between the parties. It was opined that once the rights of the parties and their shares were determined by the Trial Court in the final decree and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court, that would not be the correct course to be adopted.

Reference was made to the judgment in Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others [LQ/SC/2010/727] wherein it has been observed that the dispute relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners /co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes Redressal (ADR) Process. 

The Bench held that the case in hand was one of the most appropriate cases in which the Court should have tried for resolution of dispute by adopting alternate means namely mediation and conciliation. “The Courts are required to explore these methods for amicable settlement of family disputes”, the Bench added while dismissing the appeal.