LexRAJINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR USHA versus GURBHAJAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. UPINDER KAUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1417 : 2024 INSC 552 Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs. Upinder Kaur and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 7946-7947 of 2024) 23 July 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Suit for partition of the joint property was filed by the appellant- plaintiff. High Court whether justified in passing the impugned judgment holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 (subsequent buyers) were not liable to render any accounts. Headnotes† Suit – Rendition of accounts by co-sharers – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19, if were liable to render accounts: Held: Yes – Admittedly, defendant No.3(a) had rented out a portion of the property and collected rent therefrom, thus, there was no good reason for the High Court to have absolved him from rendition of accounts – However, as the plea sought to be raised by the defendant No.3(a) regarding rent notes produced by him were prima facie found to be sham transactions, as the market rate of the rent of the portion in control of the defendant No.3(a) was much more at that time, the Trial Court will hold an inquiry on this aspect and fix appropriate rent to which the defendant No.3(a) would be liable to contribute to the common kitty for appropriation amongst all the co-sharers – High Court erred in finding that the defendant No.3(a), being in self-occupation of the part of the property, being a co-sharer, will not be liable to render any accounts to arrive at such a conclusion – Reference was made to the fact that his vendor (defendant No.3) had contested litigation with the tenant (defendant No.10) and spent huge amount thereon – But the fact remains that the Defendant No.3(a) had purchased the property from defendant no.3 after it was already vacated by the tenant and he was handed over vacant physical possession thereof – Further, defendant Nos.15 to 19 were absolved from rendering account on the ground that the portion in their possession was to the extent of their share in the property – However, this issue has not been * Author 1418 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports determined by any authority – High Court erred in holding that defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 were not liable to render any accounts – Impugned judgments set aside – Defendant No.3(a) and defendant Nos.15 to 19 to render accounts and/or liable to contribute rent as assessed by the Trial Court during the course of passing of final decree for the portions in their respective possession. [Paras 20, 21, 21.2, 22, 23] Case Law Cited Resident’s Welfare Association and Another v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others [2023] 1 SCR 601 : (2023) 8 SCC 643 : 2023 INSC 22 – referred to. List of Acts Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960. List of Keywords Rendition of accounts by co-sharers; Suit for partition; Joint property; Co-sharers of the suit property; Subsequent buyers; Furnishing accounts of rent collected; Tenants; Preliminary decree; Final decree; Auction. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7946-7947 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2018 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 6076 of 2015 and RSA No. 2761 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Samar Pratap Singh, Karanvir Singh Khehar, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advs. for the Appellant. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Advs., M/s. Delhi Law Chambers, Rajiv Kataria, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Shurya Bhalla, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Sonam Anand, Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Ms. Sl Soujanya, Ankit Goel, Nikhil Sharma, Sahil Patel, Siddharth Batra, Rhythm Katyal, Chinmay Dubey, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Ms. Archna Yadav, Pratyush Arora, Yuvraj Chhabra, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1419 Rajinder Kaur (Deceased) Through Legal Heir Usha v. Gurbhajan Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs Upinder Kaur and Others Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals arise out of a suit for partition1 filed by the appellant for partition of the property jointly owned at that time by the appellant-plaintiff and respondents-defendant Nos.1 to 9. Defendant Nos.10 to 14 were impleaded in the suit as they were stated to be tenants on the part of the property. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court2 respondent-defendant No.3, Bhupinder Singh, havi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.