In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the prohibition on partitioning joint property by metes and bounds in Chandigarh, emphasising that the only feasible resolution is sale via auction. This decision aligns with the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960.
The judgment, rooted in the case of Residents Welfare Association & Anr. v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 24, was upheld in the recent RAJINDER KAUR v. GURBHAJAN KAUR case. The Supreme Court approved the trial court’s direction for auctioning the property in question.
The bench, comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, highlighted that co-sharers must render accounts. One co-sharer, with a mere 1% stake, had rented out his portion, while another group holding 15% were conducting business on their share. The Court observed that despite his small ownership, the 1% co-sharer possessed a substantial part of the property.
The Court criticised the High Court for exempting this co-sharer from accounting for the rental income, stressing the necessity of accountability given his admitted rental activities. Regarding the five co-sharers conducting business, the Court pointed out that their financial obligations depended on whether their usage exceeded their ownership share.
The origin of this dispute traces back to a suit seeking property partition, with the trial court ruling for an auction due to the prohibition on metes and bounds partitioning under the 1960 Rules. The preliminary decree required all co-sharers to render accounts, a decision challenged and partially overturned by the High Court. The Supreme Court reversed this exemption, emphasizing that all co-sharers must account for their earnings.
The Supreme Court noted discrepancies in rental income claims, with the plaintiff willing to pay significantly higher rent than what was purportedly received. This inconsistency requires further examination during the trial court’s final decree process.
The Court directed that after the property sale, any co-sharer failing to contribute to the common fund will have their distribution share reduced accordingly. Given the case’s prolonged duration since 2005, the Court urged the trial court to expedite the matter, aiming for resolution within nine months.
