LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus SAHUJAIN CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK A v. SAHUJAIN CHARITABLE SOCIETY AND ORS. JULY 11, 2007 (C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] B Partition Act, 1893: ss.2 and 3-Partition suit-Preliminary decree passed on determination of shares of property-Division of property not possible by metes and bounds- C Direction by Court for public auction of the suit property-Held: Sharer having larger share has preferential right and if his offer is highest, it deserves to be accepted-Courts to decide such simple matters with some haste and not allow them to linger on-Constitution of India. 1950-Art. I 42. The plaintiff-appellant held 66% of shares in the suit property D consisting of two buildings and the land on which it stood. Defendant No.I to 9 also held small shares in the suit property. On 22.6.1977, the preliminary decree for partition was passed. The preliminary decree became final. The respondent No.I was not a party to the preliminary decree and no share was allotted to it. Subsequently respondent No.I and 5 purchased the shares of E defendants. Thus both respondent Nos.I and 5 who were impleaded in the final decree proceedings were assignees from sharers subsequent to the preliminary decree. A local commissioner was appointed for effecting division pursuant to the preliminary decree who found that partition by metes and bounds was not possible. The buildings were valued at Rs.25 lacs. Defendant F No.8 owning 8 out of 124 shares moved an application for sale of the property. Plaintiff-Bank did not seek to enforce its right to buy the rights of the other sharers in terms ofs.3 of the Partition Act. The Court directed by order dated 21.7.1987 for public auction. The sharers were given liberty to participate in the same and to set off the purchase price to the extent of their shares. This order was not implemented for about 12 years. Respondent No.5, the assignee G from one of the sharers mo,·ed a fresh application for sale of the property. On 1.3.2000, the Court noticing the earlier order dated 21.7.1987 directed the implementation of that order but ordered a fresh valuation. The valuer submitted a fresh valuation of Rs.1.06 crores. At this stage 255 H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 8 S.C.R. A plaintiff moved an application under s.3 of Partition Act seeking to buy the shares of the other sharers. This petition was dismissed. Plaintiff filed an appeal. High Court held that the parties had agreed to settle the matter if proper valuation was made and directed yet another valuation. This time the valuer valued property at Rs.1.04 crores less than about Rs.2 lacs from the previous valuation. High Court thereafter disposed of the appeals by directing B that valuation submitted be accepted and another sharers to execute conveyances in favour of plaintiff on their depositing the amount less its share. The price payable was later corrected to show the purchase price as Rs.1.06 crores higher of the two subsequent valuations. The amount was deposited and sale was affirmed on 24.6.2005. At this stage, Respondent No. I the C assignee offered to purchase the property for Rs.1.25 crores as agains.t Rs.1.06 crores for which it was sold to the plaintiff. The Court directed respondent to deposit Rs.1.25 crores. This amount was deposited . On 26. 7.2005 respondent No. I offered to purchase the property for Rs.2 crores. The plaintiff was not willing to make any higher offer but raised the objection that the sale in its favour had been confirmed, it has deposited the price and D nothing more remained to be done. High Court directed the property to be sold to respondent No.I at Rs. 2 crores. E In appeal to this Court, plaintiff-appellant offered an enhanced price of Rs.2.01 crores. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The court was called upon to play a more active role in dispensation of justice and should have ensured that this suit for partition filed as early as on 12.5.1975 s'ood d·isposed of finally within a reasonable time after the preliminary decree, especially when the issue involved was such F a simple one. This Court is constrained to make such observations because of unhappiness at the tardiness of the process of court, which is one of the -./ - G aspects that is held out as discrediting one for the judiciary. This Court hopes that the court concerned would ensure that such matters are dealt with in an appropriate manner, but with a little more expedition. [Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.