Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a family partition dispute concerning the properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral, who died on 28.01.1996, survived by three sons and two daughters. A suit for partition was filed by Mahendra Nath Soral (appellant no.1) in Civil Suit No.27 of 2000. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 27.04.2005 holding all legal heirs entitled to equal shares. This was challenged by two sons, Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral, in appeals before the Rajasthan High Court, which were dismissed except for a modification regarding gold jewelry. Subsequently, an approved Valuer submitted a report on 08.08.2008 for Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota. The Trial Court passed a final decree on 03.01.2009, allotting portions: appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 (Asha Soral) received ground floor portions, while respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 received first floor portions with roof rights. Usha Sharma (deceased) was allotted a separate house in Jaipur. The appellants challenged the final decree before the High Court, arguing that the Valuer failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect valuation and entitle all co-sharers to equal roof rights. The High Court upheld the final decree on 19.09.2018. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and noted that the appellants had not raised objections to the valuation before the Trial Court. The Court observed that reopening the final decree would undo the settled rights and lead to further litigation. The Court also emphasized that family partition disputes should be resolved through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation, citing Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Partition Decree - Finality of Decree - The appellants challenged the final decree of partition on the ground that the Valuer did not assess the value of roof rights, which would change the valuation and entitle all co-sharers to equal roof rights. The Supreme Court held that reopening the final decree at this stage would undo the settled rights and lead to further litigation, and thus dismissed the appeal. (Paras 16-22) B) Alternative Dispute Resolution - Family Partition Disputes - Mediation - The Court observed that disputes relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners/co-owners should normally be settled through ADR processes, citing Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others (2010) 8 SCC 24. (Para 23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to challenge the final decree of partition on the ground that the approved Valuer failed to assess the value of roof rights, thereby affecting the valuation and shares of the parties.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reopening the final decree would undo settled rights and lead to further litigation. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition decree
- finality of decree
- valuation of property
- roof rights
- alternative dispute resolution
- mediation
- family settlement
