Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition regarding a 3-BHK freehold flat (No. B-704, Kedar Apartments, Rohini, Delhi) measuring approximately 1053 square feet
Source reference: p.1, para. 1On December 19, 2025, the Court passed a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff and the three defendants each held a 1/4th share in the property
Source reference: p.1-2, para. 2Mediation between the parties failed
Source reference: p.2, para. 3The parties conceded that the property is not divisible by metes and bounds and agreed to a sale via inter se bidding, private sale, or public auction
Source reference: p.2, para. 4-5Although original title deeds were missing and an FIR had been lodged, the property was confirmed as freehold
Source reference: p.2, para. 6A separate suit for permanent injunction (Suit No. 17 CS DJ 920/2025) was pending in the District Court, where an order dated November 26, 2025, restrained the creation of third-party rights
Source reference: p.2, para. 10-11Issues
1. Whether a final decree for partition should be passed and a Local Commissioner appointed to facilitate the sale of the suit property given its physical indivisibility
Source reference: p.2, para. 72. Whether the pending injunction order from the District Court restricts the High Court from directing a sale of the suit property
Source reference: p.3, para. 12Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), specifically Order XXI Rule 66 regarding the conduct of public auctions
Source reference: p.4, para. 14(vii)It also relied on Chapter XXIV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, to govern the procedure for sale
Source reference: p.4, para. 14(vii)The Court exercised its inherent power to ensure the execution of a partition decree when property cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds, prioritizing inter se bidding and private sale over public auction
Source reference: p.3, para. 14Reasoning
The Court observed that since the property was a 3-BHK flat with four equal shareholders, physical division was impossible
Source reference: p.2, para. 4Consequently, the Court accepted the joint request of the parties to proceed with a final decree and appointment of a Local Commissioner (LC) for sale
Source reference: p.2, para. 7To facilitate the sale in the absence of original documents, the Court directed the parties to obtain certified copies of the title deeds
Source reference: p.2, para. 8-9Regarding the conflicting injunction in the District Court, the High Court clarified that the lower court's order would not impede the sale and directed Defendant No. 1 to withdraw the said suit within two weeks to clear the cloud on the title
Source reference: p.3, para. 12-13The Court established a structured sale process: first, inter se bidding or private sale among the parties; if unsuccessful within six weeks, a public auction would be initiated
Source reference: p.3, para. 14(iii-v)Holding
The Court passed a final decree declaring the plaintiff and three defendants as owners of 1/4th share each in the suit property
It appointed a Local Commissioner to oversee the sale process, starting with inter se bidding and culminating in a public auction if necessary
Source reference: p.3-4, para. 14(ii-v)The LC was authorized to obtain a government valuation and conduct the auction per the CPC and Delhi High Court Rules
Source reference: p.4, para. 14(vi-vii)The Court ordered the registry to prepare the decree sheet and disposed of the suit, listing the matter for compliance on July 21, 2026
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 16-20Original Court PDF
Padam Sagar BavejavsNeeti Singh & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
