Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, personalize content, and analyze site traffic.
By clicking "Accept", you consent to the use of all cookies as described in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Shub Karan Bubna
Respondent: Sita Saran Bubna
Hon’ble Justice R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ
The petitioner and two other people were the targets of a partition lawsuit brought by the respondent and his mother. The First Additional Judge of Muzaffarnagar had previously drafted a preliminary decision ordering the division of one-third of the respondents' shares, as well as a final decree (verdict) ordering the actual division of the plots under a commissioner chosen for the same purpose. In 1987, the respondent requested that a final decree be drawn up, and in 1991, the petitioner requested that the proceedings for this be dropped since they were time-barred (filed too late).
The trial court denied the petitioner's request. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the application is barred by the statute of limitations (filed too late from the prescribed time by law) because it has been three years since the court issued the preliminary decree. This High Court revision petition (petition for reviewing the judgment and rectify, if applicable) that was submitted was likewise denied. In order to appeal the High Court ruling that denied the revision petition, a special leave petition ( filed under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution) was submitted to the Supreme Court. It was determined that the respondent's application to draw a final decree is legal and is exempt from the application of statutory time limits. The Court denied this special leave petition and a request to proceed with the final decree procedures because they lacked merit.
Partition is a judicial process that resolves the right of the plaintiff to the subject property and eligibility for division and possession. The final decree ensures the property is divided based on metes and bounds (exact measurements) after a physical examination. The court clarified that under the Limitation Act, if a lawsuit or appeal is filed after the prescribed time limit, it will be rejected, as mentioned in the Third Division of the Schedule. However, there is no specific deadline in the Act for filing requests to draft a final decree. As per Article 137, any application without a set time limit must be filed within three years from when the plaintiff gains the right to do so. The Court emphasized that once a preliminary decree is passed, it is the Court’s duty to start final decree proceedings immediately, and litigants should not have to remind the Court. Since the respondents' application was part of an ongoing case, it was not restricted by limitation laws. The Court ordered the execution of the final decree, while the special leave petition (SLP) remained on hold.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is significant as it clarifies that the application for a final decree in partition suits (lawsuits for division of a property into shares) is not bound by the limitation period (the statute prescribed time period within which suits can be made respectively). This ensures that the partition process is completed in a timely manner, respecting the rights of all parties involved. It also emphasizes the responsibility of the judiciary in finalizing decrees without undue delay.
The case of Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna & Ors. highlights the importance of timely judicial intervention in partition suits and the separation of shares. This approach ensures that the rights of the litigants are protected, and the judicial process is efficient and fair.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.