When Process Meets Property: SC Reopens Decades-Old Land Partition Case

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case involves a dispute over land ownership and possession. Civil Suit No.66 of 19791 was filed by Mukand Singh (father of the Appellant, now represented by LRs) and Chanan Singh against a total of thirty-three persons, including Dr. Thakar Singh (father of the Respondent 1 & 2) and LRs of Nand Singh, seeking declaration and separate possession of a half share of the land in Khasra No.6363, Khatauni No.7257 and Khasra No.2259 (measuring 2 Kanals - 18 Marlas). Out of the thirty-three defendants only two, namely, Dr. Thakar Singh and one Karamjit Singh were represented, while others remained ex-parte. The suit was decreed and the plaintiffs were declared owners and possessors of half share of the above property. An appeal was filed thereagainst, but the same came to be dismissed vide order and judgment dated 18th October 1982. In pursuance thereof, a warrant of possession in favor of Mukand Singh was issued on 21st September 1985. The case was filed seeking ownership and possession of half of a particular land. This suit was decreed, granting them ownership. Possession of this land was partially executed.

Subsequently in 1987, Dr Thakar filed Civil Suit No.2662 against the LRs Nand Singh and approximately seventy other defendants, for his individual one-fourth share of 58 marlas (Khasra No.2259). It is to be noted that plaintiffs in the first partition suit were defendants in this second partition suit, which included Mukand Singh, the father of Joginder Singh.

ISSUES OF THE CASE?

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner to the extent of share in the

property as detailed in the head note of the plaint?

2. Whether suit is not maintainable??

3. Whether suit is not properly valued for court fees and

jurisdiction?

4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of possession as

prayed for?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This section states that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
• Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The doctrine of Lis Pendens is based on a principle that during the pendency of suit, the subject matter of it (i.e. the property in the suit) should not be transferred to a third party.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELANT?

The appellant argued that the portion of land that was decreed in his favor in the first suit should not be included in the second suit’s execution decree. They further claimed the ownership over the property based on a decree from 1985 and also argued that the decree holders had some essential facts.

The appellant also asserted that mistakes during the process and failure to notify the appellant in the second suit violated the due process.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the appellant had no right to object as he wasn’t a third party. They further claimed that objections under Order XXI Rules 58 and 97 were invalid due to the appellant’s connection as a successor. They also argued that the property in question was properly decreed to them and should be executed as per the final court orders.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court by observing that there were some irregularities in the process and substantive rights issues in dismissing the objections, the Court stated that the irregularities in the process should not overshadow the substantive rights and thus directed the matter back to the First Appellate Court for a detailed hearing of the objections.

ANALYSIS

The case highlights the complexity between procedural law and substantive property rights.

The judgement highlights that the Court executing a decree cannot modify it but it has to ensure that each of the party’s legitimate property rights are respected.

CONCLUSION

Over all this case emphasized that justice should not be compromised by procedural errors. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the lower court to evaluate the appellant’s objections on their merits.

The Supreme Court reinforced that while procedural laws aid the administration of justice, they should not be used to deny just relief.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.?