Delhi District Court
Sh. Varinder Pal Singh vs Sh. Iqbal Singh on 29 July, 2024
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
District Judge - 07, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 609779/16 (Old No. 544/03)
CNR No. DLCT01-000017-2003
In the matter of:
Sh. Varinder Pal Singh
S/O Sh. Kartar Singh
R/O - B-175, Gujranwala Town,
Delhi New Delhi
....Plaintiff
versus
1. Sh. Iqbal Singh
B-175, Gujranwala Town,
Delhi New Delhi
2. Sh. Daljit Singh
5405, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi New Delhi
....Defendants
Date of Institution : 05.03.2003
Arguments concluded on : 29.07.2024
Date of decision : 29.07.2024
Result : Decreed
SUIT FOR PARTITION
JUDGMENT
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 1 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors. Suit in brief
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition against the defendants and a preliminary decree was passed vide order dated 06.03.2019, whereby the plaintiff and defendants were held entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit property bearing no. B-175, Gujranwala Town, Delhi, New Delhi.
2. Thereafter, a Ld. Local Commissioner was appointed on 21.07.2022 to suggest the possible ways/modes of dividing the property by metes and bounds. Ld. Local Commissioner has, inter-alia, suggested in his report dated 04.11.2022 that the suit property can be partitioned in equal shares as well as by metes and bounds as each floor has the separate staircases. He has further suggested in his report that if the parties to the present suit want to sell out the said property, it can easily be sold in the market.
3. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the report of the Ld. LC dated 04.11.2022 and submitted that the area of the possession of the plaintiff is less constructed than area in the possession of the defendant no.1. He also submitted that the property cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. At the same time, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 also submitted that the partition of the suit property is not possible by metes and bounds. Moreover, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 also submitted that the property in his possession is less constructed and CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 2 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
therefore, partition is not possible.
4. This court has perused the report of the Local Commissioner as well as photographs of the suit property which were taken at the time of inspection conducted by Ld. LC. As per the said report, the current possession of the parties in the suit property are as follow:
(1) The plaintiff is in the possession of the first floor having occupying one drawing room, two bed rooms, one Kitchen, one attached toilet bathroom and one single toilet.
(2) The defendant no.1 is in the possession of ground floor having occupying one drawing room, three bed rooms (two interconnected rooms), one kitchen plus one extended kitchen, two bathrooms plus two toilet.
(3) The defendant no.2 is in the possession of second floor having occupying one drawing room with terrace, one toilet with teen shed and one kitchen unfurnished.
5. The aforesaid possession of the suit property has not been agreed by the parties and they are also not agreeable to allot each floor to one specific party. In view of the aforesaid facts, this court is not acting on the opinion given by the Ld. Local Commissioner in his report CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 3 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
suggesting that the suit property can be partitioned in equal share as well as by metes and bounds as each floor has the separate staircases. This court finds that the defendant no.2 in the present suit is having only one drawing room with terrace, one toilet with teen shed and one kitchen unfurnished which is very less constructed porition than the other floors in the suit property.
6. Moreover, at the time of argument, this court has raised a specific query to the parties qua the date of construction of the suit property, to which the parties apprised that it was constructed in the year 1990. This court cannot ignore the fact that the suit property is a very old constructed building of around 34 years, which may pose serious safety risk to the potential occupants. Ergo, this court also finds that the suit property is not susceptible to division in kind without substantial prejudice to the parties.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since there is a inequality in the constructed portion in the suit property and the parties to the suit are also not agreeable to allot each floor to one specific party, this court finds that the better way will be to sell the said property instead of dividing it physically by metes and bounds. Moreover, the property is situated at a prime location and if it is divided into three parts, it will diminish its value and utility.
8. The principles of the auction sale are as under:-
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 4 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
PRINCIPLES OF AUCTION SALE Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893:-
"2. Power to court to order sale instead of division in partition suits-
Whenever in any suit for partition in which, if instituted prior to the commencement of this Act, a decree for partition might have been made, it appears to the court that. by reason of the nature of the property to which the suit relates, or of the number of the shareholders therein, or of any other special circumstance, a division of the property cannot reasonably or conveniently be made, and that a sale of the property and distribution of the proceeds would be more beneficial For all the shareholders, the court may, If it thinks fit, on the request of any of such shareholders interested individually or collectively to the extent of one moiety or upwards, direct a sale of the property and a distribution of the proceeds."
9. The Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has dealt with the issue of Sale of the property in Partition matter in the case of 'Indu Singh and Anr. Versus Prem Chaudhary and Ors.' bearing O. REF. 2/2018 IN CS(OS) 1098/2005 decided on 11.05.2018. The relevant para Nos.4 to 6 of the said Judgment are reproduced as under:
"4(i). The meaning of partition, in one more sense, is to give a person his monetary value of the share in the joint properties. Before passing of the Partition Act 1893, the concept of partition only meant partition by metes and bounds or physical partition of the joint properties. In many cases on account of the fact that physical partition by metes and CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 5 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
bounds was not possible, there hence resulted a stalemate, because neither the properties could be physically partitioned by metes and bounds nor could sale take place of the joint properties because there was no concept prevalent of partition having the effect of giving a person his monetary value share in the joint properties by selling the joint properties. Partition Act was enacted to remedy this failing. By the Partition Act it was provided for the first time that in case a joint property could not be physically partitioned by metes and bounds (including by applying the principle of owelty or equalization) then in such a scenario the joint property could be sold. I may note that owelty means that when by physical partition a co-owner gets less or more physical property than falling to as per his percentage share in a joint property, then in such a case final partition is effected by, besides physically partitioning the property, in addition also awarding a monetary amount to a person who gets a lesser share of the property on partition than the monetary value equivalent of his share. The person who gets a share which is larger than his monetary value entitlement on partition becomes liable to pay a monetary amount to a person who gets a share lesser than is his monetary value entitlement of his share in the joint property/properties. Owelty principle is thus an equalization principle.
(ii) Enactment of the Partition Act however did not provide a complete cure because an entitlement to sell the joint property/properties was only when more than one moiety or upwards of the shareholders agree that the joint property/properties are to be sold. Moiety means 50% or a half share. Therefore in a scenario where less than 50% of the joint owner(s) wanted an order of sale, then such an order of sale could not be passed. Therefore though the bringing into force of the Partition Act did remedy some shortcoming in the position of the partition law prevailing before the passing of the Partition Act by entitling the sale of the joint property/properties, yet even after passing of this Act there still remained a failing/shortcoming in the situation where if 50% or more of the joint owners did not agree for sale then once again there was a stalemate because partition could not be effected of the joint property/properties either by physical partition by metes and bounds or by selling the joint property/properties and giving a monetary value from the sale proceeds of the joint property/properties to a co-owner as per his share percentage in the joint property/properties. We note that there is an aspect with respect to an order of sale under the Partition Act to be deemed to be a decree in terms of Section 8 of the Partition Act, and CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 6 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
this aspect will be adverted to in detail hereinafter inasmuch as the provision of Section 8 of the Partition Act existing in this Act is the main reason for reference to this Full Bench.
5(i). The Partition Act was passed in the year 1893 and Code of Civil Procedure was passed later in the year 1908. There are two provisions of CPC which are relevant to the issues at hand, and which are the provisions of Order XX Rule 18 and Order XXVI Rule 14. These provisions have already been reproduced above.
(ii) A reference to Order XX Rule 18 CPC shows that properties of which partition take place are of two types. First type of properties are agricultural properties i.e. those properties which pay land revenue to the Government. Qua such properties the provision of Sub-Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC applies. Second type of properties are the properties in urban areas and with respect to partition of such properties, it is the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 which applies.
(iii) As per Order XX Rule 18 Sub-Rule (1) in a suit for partition there is only one decree which is passed and the ministerial act of physical division of joint property/properties is left to the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector as is provided in Section 54 CPC. Therefore with respect to partition suits of properties paying land revenue to the Government, after a decree was passed declaring the shares of the parties, then by the same decree the Collector or a person deputed by the Collector is appointed to bring about physical division of the properties in terms of the shares declared in the decree.
(iv) So far as urban immovable properties are concerned which are not the subject matter of Sub-Rule (1) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that where partition cannot be conveniently made without further enquiry, then first a preliminary decree is passed declaring shares/rights of the parties, and thereafter further directions as are required in the facts and circumstance of the each case are passed. Of course, even with respect to immovable properties which are subject matter of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC there can be cases where it may not be required to pass first only a preliminary decree, and that in certain cases a Court can pass both a preliminary and final decree by one judgment if the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition are such that the Court can physically divide the joint CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 7 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
properties in terms of the shares of the joint owners.
(v) Of course, the factum of physical division of the properties, whether under Sub-Rule (1) or under Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC, the same would also be; where facts of a case so require; by also applying the principle of owelty, because surely and in many cases partition by metes and bounds does result in a person getting that physical share of the property/properties which will be less or more than the monetary value percentage share of that co-owner/joint owner in the properties. The principle of owelty (i.e. an equalization amount) is found and clearly so specified under Order XXVI Rule 14 Sub-Rule (1), and this Sub-Rule (1) of Order XXVI Rule 14 will apply to partition of the properties which are subject matter of both Sub-Rule (1) and Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC.
6.(i) At this stage it will be extremely relevant to note two important aspects.
(ii) First aspect is that while Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC provides that a court may on account of the facts and circumstances as regards the properties which are subject matter of the suit for partition, find that straightaway a final decree for partition cannot be passed giving physical shares in the joint properties to the joint owners, then therefore in such cases, the court passes only a preliminary decree declaring the shares of the parties, and that after passing of the preliminary decree, a court has; as per the last line and set of words of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC; powers to pass "such further directions as may be required". These words appearing at the end of the Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC are very important and of great significance because these words in my opinion has removed the shortcoming which had still remained in spite of passing of the Partition Act as regards the situation when moiety or upwards of the shareholders did not want sale of the suit properties. With respect to properties which were not subject matter of payment of land revenue to the government, then with respect to such properties which are subject matter of Order XX Rule 18 Sub- Rule (2) CPC, court was given intendedly the power to pass such further directions as may be required, and such a wide expression therefore in my opinion will entitle a civil court to order for sale of the joint property/properties even if moiety or upwards of the shareholders do not want sale of the joint property/properties. This language of the last few words at the end of Order XX Rule 18 Sub-
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 8 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
Rule (2) in my opinion becomes very important and relevant in today‟s age and date because a considerable number of immovable properties which are subject matter of suits for partition are properties which have been constructed many decades earlier and which is the next aspect which is being immediately adverted to hereinafter.
(iii) The second aspect is that over a period of time in urban areas the covered area of construction which is permissible on a plot has been steadily increasing. For example in Delhi previously on a plot ordinarily a ground floor, first floor and a barsati floor (part second floor) was only allowed to be constructed. Barsati floor means that the entire second floor is not allowed to be covered but the second floor which is called as a barsati floor is allowed to be only partly covered. The municipal law thereafter changed whereby almost the entire second floor was allowed to be covered. Thereafter, the municipal law has further changed and a third floor was allowed to be constructed, besides allowing construction of a basement on a property. Now in addition to a plot having a basement and four floors, in view of the scarcity of parking of vehicles in a city like Delhi on account of the existence of unending number of vehicles, stilt parking is also permitted to be made below the ground floor and above the basement floor. Since the ultimate object and the real intention of the joint properties being partitioned is to give a person his monetary value equivalent of his percentage share in the joint property/properties, and since now additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/covered area permissible, therefore in old constructed properties, simply by physically dividing the existing construction the same does not result in a person getting his monetary value of his percentage share in the joint property/properties. Partition therefore really in today‟s date and age in urban areas is a partition in terms of FAR/covered area, and once that is so, then on such FAR/covered area being available to a co-owner/joint owner then such a person may/would/could want to reconstruct for enjoying more constructed area falling to his share, and which will necessarily require bringing down the old construction and thereafter making fresh construction on the plot of basement plus four floors and stilt parking. Thus in very old constructed properties simply physically partitioning of such joint property/properties is not the answer, and the joint property/properties in many cases have necessarily to be sold so as to give a person his actual monetary share value in the joint property/properties. At this stage I would hasten to add that with respect to sale of a joint property, the entitlement of a co-owner in terms of Sections 3,4, 6 and 7 of the Partition Act come CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 9 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
in, whereby on an order being passed of sale of a joint property, the sale is not necessarily and firstly by public auction/sale, because firstly in the sale proceedings, one or more co-owners can buy out the other co-owner/co-owners i.e. rights of pre-emption.
(iv) Therefore in my opinion the words as found in the last line of Sub-Rule (2) of Order XX Rule 18 CPC would result in a position that as of today there no longer exists any gap or shortcoming or failing which would result in a stalemate if joint owner(s), having less than a 50% share, ask for his/their share by filing a suit for partition of the joint property/properties."
10. I have perused the file. The size of the property in question is ad-measuring 160 Sq. Yards and has three floors and the partition of all the three floors amongst the parties is not possible because all the floors have different value as well as not equally constructed and it is not feasible to divide the property by metes and bounds. Considering the size of the property and its floor having different values and not equally constructed, the only mode which is available under the law is to auction the property in question or to invoke Section-3 of the Partition Act, 1893. However, the final decree is required to be passed before invoking Section-3 of the Partition Act, 1893. The final decree is required to be engrossed upon the Non-Judicial stamp paper, as has been dealt by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Judgment and the relevant operative portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
"I. An order of sale passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is a final decree in a partition suit, and all proceedings towards sale of the property which is subject matter of the final decree of partition, have to take place in execution proceedings of this final decree.
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 10 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
II. An order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof.
III. The judgments of this Court in the cases of K.N. Khanna 2000 (55) DRJ 544: 2000 (87) DLT 286 (DB) and Sushil Kumar Gupta v.
Smt. Prem Gupta and Ors. 2013 (135) DRJ 341 (DB) are hereby overruled."
Section 8 of the Partition Act, 1893 is also reproduced hereunder:
"8. Orders for sale to be deemed decrees.-Any order for sale made by the court under section 2,3 or 4 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1552)."
11. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.1 relied on the case of 'Satish Kumar Chojar vs. Subhashni Chopra & Ors. CS(OS) No. 2190/2011 & IA No. 7476/2013', High Court of Delhi and the relevant observation are as under:
"46. As far as the claim of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction is concerned, the same is found to be in interest of all the parties and in aid to the final decree for partition to follow in this suit. Accordingly, all the parties are directed to, within sixty days hereof, join in making an application for mutation of the leasehold rights in the land underneath the property from the name of Sh. Shanti Sarup Chojar to their own names and to thereafter also take steps for conversion of the leasehold rights in the said land into freehold. Needless to state that all the expenses therefor will be born equally by the parties and if any of the parties fail to contribute his/her share, the same shall be deducted with interest, out of his/her share in the property."
Relief
12. Considering the above facts & circumstances of the present case, the following final order/decree is passed:
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 11 of 13
Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
(A) The suit property bearing no. B-175, Gujranwala
Town, Delhi New Delhi ad-measuring 160 sq. yards shall be sold out in auction and the auction amount, after deducting necessary expenses, shall be distributed to the parties, as per their respective share, i.e. 1/3 rd each, passed in the preliminary judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019. Parties are however at liberty to buy/sell the share of other one before the date of auction of the said sale.
(B) The Final decree in this case is required to be engrossed upon non-judicial papers as an order of sale in a partition suit passed under Section 8 of the Partition Act is an instrument of Partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and requires to be stamped in accordance with Article 45 of the Schedule thereof. The parties are directed to place on record the non judicial stamp papers of requisite amount, as per Article 45, in accordance with their shares.
(C) If one party or more than one party fails to deposit the non judicial stamp papers of their respective shares, then the other party is/are at liberty to file the non judicial stamp paper of the value of the defaulting party and the amount so CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 12 of 13 Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.
spent by such party shall be recoverable as a cost and the auction amount of the defaulting party shall be reduced accordingly against the said cost and shall be paid to the party who had borne the expenses of defaulting party.
(D) The relief of permanent injunction in respect of restraining the plaintiff and defendants from raising the construction and/or creating any 3rd parte interest in the suit property i.e. property bearing no. B-175, Gujranwala Town, Delhi, which was granted in preliminary decree vide order dated 06.03.2019 is hereby made absolute.
13. Accordingly, the Final Decree be drawn on filing of the requisite stamp papers. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly in terms of the this judgment. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NARESH Digitally
by NARESH
signed
Announced & dictated in KUMAR KUMAR LAKA
Date: 2024.07.29
the open court on 29.07.2024 LAKA 16:58:53 +0530
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
District Judge-07
Central District/Tis Hazari Court
CS DJ No. 256/2016 (9779/16/19) Page no. 13 of 13
Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Vs. Sh. Iqbal Singh & Ors.