Bench comprising of Justice KN Wanchoo, Justice RS Bachawat and Justice V Ramaswami.
Introduction:
This is a landmark judgment that laid down that in suits of partition more than one preliminary decree can be passed.
It deals deals with the dispute over the partition of family property, highlighting significant issues regarding the validity of a will, the rights of a limited owner to sell property, and the court's ability to amend shares post a preliminary decree in a partition suit.
Facts
The appellant, Phoolchand, filed a partition suit against his father, mother, brother (Gopal Lal, the respondent), and the adopted son of a deceased brother. A preliminary decree was passed, specifying the shares of each party. However, both the father and mother died before the final decree. Gopal Lal claimed the father's share, citing a will executed in his favor, while Phoolchand asserted that the mother had executed a sale deed in his favor concerning her share. Phoolchand challenged the validity of the will, and Gopal Lal argued that the mother, being a limited owner, was not authorized to sell her share.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Issues:
- Whether the High Court’s decision, which upheld the Trial Court’s order, was valid.
- Whether the court could amend the shares after a preliminary decree when a family member died.
- Whether the will executed by the father in favor of Gopal Lal was genuine and legally valid.
- Whether the mother, as a limited owner, had the right to sell her share.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The will executed by the father was not genuine, and the appellant disputed its validity. The mother had executed a valid sale deed transferring her share to him, and as such, the transaction should be upheld. The partition decree should account for the changes following the mother’s death.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The will executed by the father in his favor was genuine, and he had a right to claim the father’s share. The mother, being a limited owner, did not have the right to sell her share of the property. He argued that the share adjustments should be made in light of the legal rights, and any subsequent changes were unjustified.
Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to amend the shares post the preliminary decree, noting that the death of a party after the decree warranted an adjustment of the shares. The Court emphasized that the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not prohibit the passing of more than one preliminary decree in partition suits. A second preliminary decree can be passed when a party dies, as it affects the shares of the surviving parties. The Court also validated the will executed by the father in favor of Gopal Lal, recognizing the testator’s right to bequeath his self-acquired property and his share in the joint family property.
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908: Section 2 defines "partition suit," and Section 54 allows for a second preliminary decree in cases where a party dies after the initial decree.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Trial Court. It validated the will executed by the father in favor of Gopal Lal and upheld the court’s authority to amend shares post the preliminary decree in a partition suit, particularly when a party dies. The judgment reinforced that a second preliminary decree can be issued in partition suits when necessary.
