The Supreme Court of India has determined that the partition of property by metes and bounds is not permissible within Chandigarh. This decision stems from the legal framework established by the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. As a result, the Court has mandated that the only viable solution for the partition of joint properties is through sale by way of auction. This landmark ruling seeks to streamline property disputes and ensure equitable distribution among co-owners.
Case Background:
The case, titled Rajinder Kaur v. Gurbhajan Kaur, revolved around a suit seeking the partition of a property located in Chandigarh. The trial court had initially directed the sale of the property via auction, leading to the present appeal. The dispute involved multiple co-sharers with varying stakes in the property, each claiming rights to different portions of the property. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court, prompting further escalation to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation:
The bench, comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, referred to a previous judgment in Residents Welfare Association & Anr. v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh (2023). This prior ruling had established that property partition by metes and bounds was not allowed under the 1960 Rules. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, reinforcing that any partitioning must be conducted via public auction.
Assessment of Co-sharers’ Claims:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the claims of various co-sharers. It noted that one co-sharer, holding only a 1% stake, had rented out a substantial portion of the property and collected rent. The Court asserted that all co-sharers, regardless of their share, must render accounts for any income derived from the property. This principle ensures transparency and fair distribution of proceeds among all stakeholders.
Business Activities of Co-sharers:
The ruling also addressed the business activities conducted by another set of co-sharers, who held a 15% share in the property. These co-sharers were carrying out business operations on the premises. The Court observed that had these businesses been conducted on rented premises, rent would have been payable. Consequently, it directed that these co-sharers must also account for their usage of the property.
Conditions for Rent and Contribution:
The Court outlined specific conditions under which co-sharers must contribute to common funds. If a co-sharer occupies more than their proportional share of the property, they are required to compensate for the excess. Conversely, if their occupation is within their share, they may not need to contribute further. This conditional approach ensures fair treatment of all parties involved.
Directive for Auction and Rents:
The Supreme Court mandated the sale of the property by auction as the definitive solution for partition. It instructed the trial court to assess and determine the rent payable by co-sharers who had utilized the property beyond their entitlements. The Court clarified that co-sharers must exercise their options regarding rent assessment before the final decree.
Resolution Timeline:
Highlighting the prolonged nature of the dispute, which has been pending since 2005, the Supreme Court urged the trial court to expedite the resolution. It directed the lower court to dispose of the matter within nine months, ensuring a swift conclusion to the longstanding property dispute.
Conclusion:
This ruling by the Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of adhering to established legal frameworks for property partition in Chandigarh. By mandating auction sales, the Court aims to facilitate equitable distribution and prevent prolonged litigation. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability among co-sharers, ensuring that all stakeholders receive their fair share of proceeds from joint properties. This landmark judgment serves as a significant precedent in property law, reinforcing the principles of fair play and legal compliance in partition disputes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.