Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a partition suit final decree proceeding. A Hindu joint family property was subject to a suit for partition in O.S. No.2 of 1975. On April 24, 1982, the trial court passed a preliminary decree directing that plaint item 1 of B, C, and D schedule properties be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares, taking into account the good and bad qualities of the land, with one share to the plaintiff and the other to the first defendant. During final decree proceedings, a controversy emerged regarding the rights of the appellants, who were purchasers of specific properties from an alienee of the Karta of the joint family. The trial court passed an order on June 4, 1990 in I.A. No.626 of 1983, which was confirmed by the Single Judge of the High Court in A.S. No.2391 of 1990 on August 16, 1991. On appeal in LPA No.2651/91, the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated August 24, 1994 set aside the Single Judge's order and remitted the case to the trial court, holding that alienees have no right to equities and directing the trial court to pass final decree in accordance with its observations. The appellants, aggrieved by this direction, approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellants contended that since the alienation was made prior to the institution of the suit and they were purchasers from an alienee of the Karta, they could not be deprived of the specific properties sold to them in 1972. The respondents argued that as alienees of alienees, the appellants had no right to seek equities, and that the preliminary decree required consideration of good and bad qualities, so the respondents were entitled to equities. The Supreme Court noted that the preliminary decree had become final and must be given effect. It reiterated the settled law that alienees of alienees have no right to equities, and that a coparcener cannot sell his undivided share in joint family property; any sale of specified items does not bind the other coparceners. However, as a special case, since the specific properties were purchased before the suit, the share of the principal alienor could be allotted to the appellants. Nevertheless, because the preliminary decree specifically directed that good and bad qualities be considered, the trial court was required to ascertain the values of the lands. If the lands purchased by the appellants were found more valuable than the lands allotted to the respondents, the respondents were to be compensated in monetary value. The Supreme Court modified the Division Bench's direction accordingly and directed the trial court to pass final decree in line with this modification. The appeal was allowed in part and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Coparcener's Alienation - Alienee's Equities - Not mentioned - The appellants, purchasers from an alienee of the Karta of a joint family, sought allotment of specific properties sold to them before the partition suit. The Court held that alienees of alienees have no right to equities, and a coparcener cannot sell his undivided share in joint family property; such sale does not bind other coparceners. However, as a special case, since the properties were purchased prior to suit, the share of the principal alienor could be allotted to the appellants. Held that the trial court must pass final decree accordingly, subject to compensation if the appellants' lands are more valuable. B) Civil Procedure - Final Decree Proceedings - Effect of Preliminary Decree - Not mentioned - The preliminary decree directed partition of plaint items by metes and bounds into two equal shares taking good and bad qualities. The trial court was bound to give effect to it. While passing final decree, if the lands purchased by the appellants are found more valuable than the lands allotted to the respondents, the respective values should be ascertained and respondents compensated monetarily. Held that the Division Bench's direction was modified to this extent; appeal allowed in part.
Issue of Consideration
Whether alienees of alienees are entitled to equities in a partition suit when specific properties were purchased prior to suit; and how to give effect to a preliminary decree directing partition considering good and bad qualities.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part. The Division Bench's direction was modified: the trial court shall pass final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree. If the lands purchased by the appellants are found more valuable than the lands to be allotted to the respondents, their respective values shall be ascertained and the respondents shall be compensated monetarily. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Alienees of alienees have no right to equities
- a coparcener cannot sell his undivided share in joint family property
- sale of specified items does not bind other coparceners
- preliminary decree must be given effect to
- good and bad qualities of land to be considered
- compensation for inequality in value
