Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 372
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1980 of 2024
MAHENDRA NATH SORAL & ANOTHER … Appellant (s)
VERSUS
RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the
1 2
judgment passed by the High Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 170
3
of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was
upheld.
2. The appeal arises out of a dispute between the parties
pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late
Rameshwar Nath Soral who died on 28.01.1996. He was survived by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2024.05.03
15:54:09 IST
Reason:
1
Dated 19.09.2018
2
Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur
3
Civil Case No. 17 of 2006
Page 1 of 10
three sons and two daughters. During the pendency of the litigation
one of the daughter, Usha Sharma (Usha Soral) died on 09.05.2018 and
her legal heirs were brought on record.
4
3. From the facts available on record, it is evident that 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 are disputing the partition proceedings only with
reference to the roof rights of Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura,
Kota, measuring 2300.00 sq. ft. Besides this there was another property
also bearing House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
4. The Trial Court passed the preliminary decree on
27.04.2005 holding all the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral
entitled to equal shares in the immovable and movable properties.
5. The aforesaid preliminary decree was challenged by
Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral by filing S.B. Civil Regular
First Appeal No.500 of 2005 and S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481
of 2005, respectively before the High Court raising a grievance that
Usha Sharma and Asha Soral who are daughters of deceased
4
Civil Suit No.27 of 2000
Page 2 of 10
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; and that Surendra Nath Soral is not in possession of the
ornaments, jewelry, gold and silver items.
6. The third appeal, S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.309 of
2001 arose out 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 i.e. House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk
Phatak, Jaipur. The suit was dismissed.
7. Nothing hinges on this suit as the issue raised in the present
appeal is only with reference to the partition of the property.
8. The High Court vide common Judgment dated 18.09.2007
decided the aforesaid three appeals. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal
No.309 of 2001 was dismissed as infructuous.
9. Insofar as S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 is
concerned, it is evident that the issue sought to be raised was with
reference to the rights of the daughters in the property. The same was
Page 3 of 10
decided against the appellants and two daughters were held entitled
to share in the properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral.
10. The issue raised in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481 of
2005 was with reference to gold jewelry and silver items. The
preliminary decree of the Trial Court in that regard was modified. This
is also not a matter of consideration in the present appeal.
11. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, an
approved Valuer was appointed for valuation of the properties to be
partitioned who submitted his report dated 08.08.2008 with reference
to Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota.
5
12. Final decree was passed by the Trial Court on 03.01.2009.
As per the details given by the Valuer with reference to Plot No.5,
Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, the appellant no.1 was held entitled
to Portion-A on ground floor and the common portion attached thereto.
The Appellant No.2 was held entitled to Portion-B on ground floor and
common portion attached thereto. The Respondent No.2 was held
entitled to Portion-C on first floor alongwith roof rights. The
Respondent No.1 was held entitled to Portion-D on first floor alongwith
roof rights.
5
In Civil Case No. 17 of 2006
Page 4 of 10
13. Usha Sharma was independently held entitled to House
No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. As the value of the
aforesaid house was more, after deducting the amount to the extent of
her share, she was directed to pay ₹ 33,96,813/- to the other four co-
sharers. The share of the Appellant No.1 came out to a sum of
₹ 7,13,098/-, so was the amount to which the Appellant No.2/Asha Soral
was held entitled to. Two other sons (namely, Ravindra Nath
Soral/Respondent No.1 and Surendra Nath Soral/Respondent No.2)
were held entitled to ₹ 9,85,309/- each, from Usha Sharma.
14. Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral were held
entitled to use and utilize the staircase for going on first floor and
coming down as they were held entitled to shares on the first floor of
the property. They were also given ownership of the roof of their
respective portions. Besides this, the Court also directed for partition
of the cash and jewelry amongst all the parties to the litigation.
15. 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
Page 5 of 10
separate house. The High Court did not find merit in the arguments
raised by the appellants before the High Court.
16. Impugning the High Court judgment, brief argument raised
by the appellants was that in the valuation report dated 08.08.2008, the
Valuer had failed to assess the value of the roof rights where further
construction can be raised. If that part is taken into consideration, the
valuation of the property will change and as a result of which all the
four co-sharers of the property will have equal roof rights as well. The
same shall not be limited to the said two co-sharers who have been
given two separate portions on the first floor.
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for 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 appellants are only trying to make the mountain out
of a molehill. The appellants have been given certain additional rights
on the ground floor and the respondents have been given rights on the
roof. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal
deserved to be dismissed.
Page 6 of 10
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the relevant referred record.
19. 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. It may 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 is given to them is a kind of bounty but still they being
greedy, not satisfied with whatever they received, are litigating for last
more than two decades.
20. After the valuation of the property was done by the
approved Valuer appointed by the court, after the preliminary decree
was passed, the Trial Court determined the portions of the property
(bearing Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota) coming to the
share of four parties. Keeping in view the fact that, the property at Kota
could not be partitioned with metes and bounds in four shares and the
property at Jaipur was being maintained by Usha Sharma.
Page 7 of 10
21. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court dated
03.01.2009 shows that certain objections were raised by the parties
with reference to valuation of the property. However, it is not evident
that the appellants raised any objection. Certain objections were
raised regarding valuation of the property at Jaipur, however, the
Court rejected the same. The Court also recorded that the proposal put
forth by the parties for partition was agreed in principle and thereafter
the properties were partitioned.
22. 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. If the argument raised by the
appellants is to be accepted at this stage, the same would amount to
coming back to square one, where all the properties will have to be
revalued for the purpose of partition and this will open a new chapter
of litigation between the parties. In our opinion that course is not the
appropriate one in the case in hand, once the rights of the parties and
their shares were determined by the Trial Court in the final decree
Page 8 of 10
dated 03.01.2009 and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by
the High Court on 19.09.2018.
23. The case in hand was one of the most appropriate case in
which the Court should have tried for resolution of dispute by adopting
alternate means namely mediation and conciliation. This Court in
Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction
6
Company Private Limited and Others had opined that dispute
relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners
/co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes
Redressal (ADR) Process. Reference can be made to para 28 thereof:
“28. All other suits and cases of civil nature in
particular the following categories of cases (whether
pending in civil courts or other special tribunals/forums)
are normally suitable for ADR processes:
(i) x x x x
( ii ) All cases arising from strained or soured
relationships , including
• disputes relating to matrimonial causes,
maintenance, custody of children;
• disputes relating to partition/division
among family members/coparceners/co-
owners; and
• disputes relating to partnership among
partners.
( iii ) x x x x
6
(2010) 8 SCC 24: 2010 INSC 431
Page 9 of 10
( iv ) x x x x
( v ) x x x x
The above enumeration of “suitable” and “unsuitable”
categorisation of cases is not intended to be exhaustive or
rigid. They are illustrative, which can be subjected to just
exceptions or additions by the court/tribunal exercising
its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an
ADR process.”
23.1 The Courts are required to explore these methods for
amicable settlement of family disputes.
24. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit
in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
……………………………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
……………………………….……………..J.
(PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE)
New Delhi
May 03, 2024.
Page 10 of 10