SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT LITIGANTS SHOULD PREFER ALTERNATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL METHODS IN PROPERTY RELATED CASES

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a judgement in Mahendra Nath Soral & Anr. v. Ravindra Nath Soral And Ors Civil Appeal no. 1980 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed for revaluation of the property that had already been distributed to the legal heirs.

Facts

A dispute arose between 5 individuals pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late Rameshwar Nath Soral who died on 28.01.1996. He had 3 sons and 2 daughters. Initially a Partition Suit was filed by Mahendra Nath Soral (Appellant No. 1) where he impleaded his 2 brothers and 2 sisters as Defendants. The abovementioned Suit was decided by passing of a preliminary decree dated 27.04.2005 (Preliminary Decree) by the Ld. Trial Court where both the movable and the immovable properties were divided into 5 equal parts between all legal heirs.

Later, the aforesaid Preliminary Decree was challenged by an Appeal carried on by Ravindra Nath and Surendra Nath bearing no. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 where the issue of rights of the daughters in the property was taken up. The said Appeal bearing no. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 was decided against Ravindra Nath and Surendra Nath and the two daughters were held entitled to a share in the properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral.

Another Appeal bearing no. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481 of 2005 against the same Decree was also filed by Ravidranath and Surendrenath and was disposed of by the Court with some modifications relating to possession of gold and silver items.

A third Appeal bearing no. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.309 of 2001 arose out a suit filed by Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral against Usha Sharma, her husband Mahesh Sharma and her son Mukul Sharma, seeking perpetual injunction with reference to one of the properties at Jaipur. All the 3 Appeals were dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court vide common Judgment dated 18.09.2007.

Later, a Final Decree in Civil case no. 17 of 2006 was passed by the Trial Court dated 03.01.2009 and the property was divided amongst the 4 brothers and sisters except Usha Sharma as she was provided a separate home in Jaipur and was also directed to pay ₹33,96,813/- to the other four co-sharers.

The final Decree was challenged by the Appellants, on the basis of an alleged incorrect valuation of the property and also roof rights of the house. The Rajasthan High Court did not find any merit in the arguments raised by the Appellants and thus dismissed the Appeal bearing no. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 170 of 2009 vide Order dated 19.09.2018.

Thus, aggrieved by the Order dated 19.09.2018, the Appellants filed the present Appeal in the Supreme Court for reconsideration of the valuation of the property and the roof rights.

Issues

I) Whether the approved Valuer failed to calculate the value of the property in a just and fair manner?

II) If the Valuation was incorrect, then would revaluation be required?

Decision by Supreme Court

The Apex Court considered the Valuation Report dated 08.08.2008 and was of the view that if the approved Valuer had failed to assess the value of the property along with the value of the roof rights, where further construction could be done, then the whole property has to be revalued again.

As per the earlier valuation and division of property, certain additional rights were given to two legal heirs, namely, Mahendra Nath Soral and Asha Soral (Appellant no. 2), who were allowed shares on the ground floor, whereas roof rights were given to Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral who were granted portions in the first floor.

The Apex Court after going into the matter was of the view that if the arguments of the Appellants was accepted at this late stage, it would push the entire matter back to the first stage. Keeping in mind that the litigation had already taken more than 2 decades to reach the Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Court felt that the revaluation of the property would only lead to a new series of litigation.

The Supreme Court placed reliance on the landmark judgement of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others (2010) 8 SCC 24: 2010 INSC 431 wherein the Apex Court had opined that dispute relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners /co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes Redressal (ADR) Process. The Hon’ble Court therefore directed the parties to explore the ADR methods and try to resolve their disputes amicably.

Thus, the rights of the parties and their shares that were determined by the Trial Court in the final decree dated 03.01.2009 that was upheld by the High Court was also accepted by the Apex Court.

Conclusion

The Apex Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants without any costs and upheld the High Court Order dated 19.09.2018. What is significant is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed emphasis on the importance of alternate means to resolve the disputes such as Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation in property matters where families are involved.

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES