Court May Permit Sale of Partition Suit Property To Meet Emergent Medical Expenses With Safeguards for Co-Sharers

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 5) challenged an order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Sub Judge-II, Bhojpur, in a partition suit (Title Suit No. 167 of 2008).

The trial court had granted permission to Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff No. 3) to sell two plots of the suit property (Plot Nos. 869 and 789) to fund the urgent heart transplant and medical treatment of his father, Rana Bharat Singh.

The Petitioner alleged the order was passed in haste without verifying the medical necessity and that the land value exceeding Rs. 30 crores was disproportionate to the need.

The Respondents argued that the medical exigency was documented, undisputed in the lower court, and that the principle of parity applied as another party had previously been allowed to sell land.

1. Whether the trial court's order granting permission to alienate suit property during the pendency of a partition suit was legally sustainable despite an existing injunction.

2. Whether there was a genuine medical necessity and a violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

The court applied the principle that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (Lis Pendens) does not impose an absolute bar on transfers if the court finds a bona fide necessity.

It relied on the Mitakshara Law doctrine regarding the sale of ancestral property for Aapat Kaale (distress/emergency) and Dharmarthe (pious obligations).

Furthermore, it emphasized the "Principle of Parity" in judicial decision-making and the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court observed that the trial court properly evaluated the medical documents, which established the respondent’s father as a septuagenarian with a severe cardiac history requiring expensive treatment.

The court found the Petitioner’s claim of denial of opportunity baseless, noting that the Petitioner failed to file a rejoinder despite multiple opportunities and directions for expedited disposal.

The court reasoned that since the suit property involves over 144 bighas, the sale of a small fraction does not prejudice the final partition.

It highlighted that the trial court balanced equities by requiring the Respondents to provide an undertaking to adjust the value or allot equivalent land from their share during the final decree stage.

The court also noted the Petitioner’s own conduct in selling other suit land without permission, which weakened his case for equitable relief.

The court affirmed the permission to sell the properties in Column B of the application, subject to the condition that the value be adjusted from the Respondents' share during the final decree to ensure no prejudice to other co-sharers.

The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the main partition suit.