Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the prohibition on partition of property by metes and bounds in Chandigarh, as per the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. This judgment, delivered in the case of Rajinder Kaur v. Gurbhajan Kaur, follows the precedent set in the Residents Welfare Association & Anr. v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh (2023) and has upheld the trial court’s direction for the sale of the joint property by way of auction.

Case Background:

The dispute arose from a suit seeking the partition of joint property located in Chandigarh. The trial court, adhering to the 1960 Rules, ruled that the property could not be partitioned by metes and bounds and thus directed for its sale via auction. Additionally, all co-sharers of the suit property were instructed to render accounts. This preliminary decree was contested in the High Court by co-sharers holding a 16% share in the property, who were subsequently absolved from rendering accounts. This decision was challenged, leading to the present Supreme Court judgment.

Arguments of the Parties:

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• Against Partition by Metes and Bounds:

The plaintiffs argued that, per the 1960 Rules, the property could not be partitioned by metes and bounds. They cited the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in the Residents Welfare Association case, which supported this prohibition.

• Render Accounts:

The plaintiffs contended that all co-sharers, regardless of their possession status, should render accounts for their use of the property, particularly those deriving income from it.

• Sale by Auction:

The plaintiffs supported the trial court’s direction for the sale of the property through an auction to ensure fair distribution of proceeds among all co-sharers.

Defendant’s Arguments:

• Possession and Rental Claims:

Defendant No. 3(a) claimed that he had rented out his portion of the property and was collecting a modest rent of ₹5,800 per month.

• Business Operations:

Defendants Nos. 15 to 19 argued that they were conducting business on their share of the property and, therefore, should not be required to render accounts or contribute further.

• Fair Share in Property:

The defendants asserted that they were in possession of the property to the extent of their ownership and thus should be exempt from further financial contributions.

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

The Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the following points:

• Auction Sale:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that partition by metes and bounds is not permissible under the 1960 Rules, thus validating the auction sale as the only resolution.

• Rendering Accounts:

The Court mandated that all co-sharers, including Defendant No. 3(a) and Defendants Nos. 15 to 19, render accounts for their use of the property. It noted that any income derived from the property, whether through rent or business operations, must be accounted for.

• Assessment of Fair Rent:

The Court observed discrepancies in the rental claims by Defendant No. 3(a) and directed the trial court to examine the true rental value and any earnings derived from the property. It was noted that the plaintiff was willing to pay a significantly higher rent than claimed by Defendant No. 3(a), indicating potential undervaluation of the rental income.

• Possession vs. Ownership:

The Court clarified that Defendants Nos. 15 to 19 need to be assessed based on the extent of the property they possess. If they possess more than their ownership share, they must contribute for the excess portion to the common fund, which will then be distributed among all co-sharers.

• Timely Resolution:

Acknowledging the protracted nature of the case, which has been pending since 2005, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to expedite the final decree and dispose of the matter within nine months.