Mahendra Nath Soral vs Ravindra Nath Soral

2024 INSC 372 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1980 of 2024

MAHENDRA NATH SORAL & ANOTHER … Appellant (s)

VERSUS

RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the

judgment1 passed by the High Court2 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 170

of 2009, whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court3 was

upheld.

2. The appeal arises out of a dispute between the parties

pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late

Rameshwar Nath Soral who died on 28.01.1996. He was survived by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2024.05.03 15:54:09 IST Reason: 1 Dated 19.09.2018 2 Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur 3 Civil Case No. 17 of 2006 Page 1 of 10 three sons and two daughters. During the pendency of the litigation

one of the daughter, Usha Sharma (Usha Soral) died on 09.05.2018 and

her legal heirs were brought on record.

3. From the facts available on record, it is evident that a suit4

for partition was filed by the appellant no.1/Mahendra Nath Soral

pertaining to the properties left by his late father, impleading his two

brothers and two sisters as the defendants. However, in the present

appeal the appellants are disputing the partition proceedings only with

reference to the roof rights of Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura,

Kota, measuring 2300.00 sq. ft. Besides this there was another property

also bearing House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.

4. The Trial Court passed the preliminary decree on

27.04.2005 holding all the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral

entitled to equal shares in the immovable and movable properties.

5. The aforesaid preliminary decree was challenged by

Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral by filing S.B. Civil Regular

First Appeal No.500 of 2005 and S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481

of 2005, respectively before the High Court raising a grievance that

Usha Sharma and Asha Soral who are daughters of deceased

4 Civil Suit No.27 of 2000 Page 2 of 10 Rameshwar Nath Soral were given dowry items at the time of their

respective marriages and they are not entitled to any share in the

immovable properties in terms of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956; and that Surendra Nath Soral is not in possession of the

ornaments, jewelry, gold and silver items.

6. The third appeal, 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 i.e. House No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk

Phatak, Jaipur. The suit was dismissed.

7. Nothing hinges on this suit as the issue raised in the present

appeal is only with reference to the partition of the property.

8. The High Court vide common Judgment dated 18.09.2007

decided the aforesaid three appeals. S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal

No.309 of 2001 was dismissed as infructuous.

9. Insofar as S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.500 of 2005 is

concerned, it is evident that the issue sought to be raised was with

reference to the rights of the daughters in the property. The same was

Page 3 of 10 decided against the appellants and two daughters were held entitled

to share in the properties left by Late Rameshwar Nath Soral.

10. The issue raised in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.481 of

2005 was with reference to gold jewelry and silver items. The

preliminary decree of the Trial Court in that regard was modified. This

is also not a matter of consideration in the present appeal.

11. During the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, an

approved Valuer was appointed for valuation of the properties to be

partitioned who submitted his report dated 08.08.2008 with reference

to Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota.

12. Final decree5 was passed by the Trial Court on 03.01.2009.

As per the details given by the Valuer with reference to Plot No.5,

Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota, the appellant no.1 was held entitled

to Portion-A on ground floor and the common portion attached thereto.

The Appellant No.2 was held entitled to Portion-B on ground floor and

common portion attached thereto. The Respondent No.2 was held

entitled to Portion-C on first floor alongwith roof rights. The

Respondent No.1 was held entitled to Portion-D on first floor alongwith

roof rights.

5 In Civil Case No. 17 of 2006 Page 4 of 10

13. Usha Sharma was independently held entitled to House

No.15, Van Vihar Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. As the value of the

aforesaid house was more, after deducting the amount to the extent of

her share, she was directed to pay ₹33,96,813/- to the other four co-

sharers. The share of the Appellant No.1 came out to a sum of

₹7,13,098/-, so was the amount to which the Appellant No.2/Asha Soral

was held entitled to. Two other sons (namely, Ravindra Nath

Soral/Respondent No.1 and Surendra Nath Soral/Respondent No.2)

were held entitled to ₹9,85,309/- each, from Usha Sharma.

14. Ravindra Nath Soral and Surendra Nath Soral were held

entitled to use and utilize the staircase for going on first floor and

coming down as they were held entitled to shares on the first floor of

the property. They were also given ownership of the roof of their

respective portions. Besides this, the Court also directed for partition

of the cash and jewelry amongst all the parties to the litigation.

15. The final decree was challenged by the appellants and

another daughter Usha Sharma (now deceased), raising issue

regarding valuation of the property and also roof rights of the house, in

which the appellants were given two separate portions on the ground

floor whereas the two sons were given two separate portions on the

first floor along with roof rights. One of the daughters was given a

Page 5 of 10 separate house. The High Court did not find merit in the arguments

raised by the appellants before the High Court.

16. Impugning the High Court judgment, brief argument raised

by the appellants was that in the valuation report dated 08.08.2008, the

Valuer had failed to assess the value of the roof rights where further

construction can be raised. If that part is taken into consideration, the

valuation of the property will change and as a result of which all the

four co-sharers of the property will have equal roof rights as well. The

same shall not be limited to the said two co-sharers who have been

given two separate portions on the first floor.

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the issue was examined threadbare by the Trial Court

as well as the High Court and on appropriate valuation of the property,

as assessed by the approved Valuer, the shares of the parties were

determined. The appellants are only trying to make the mountain out

of a molehill. The appellants have been given certain additional rights

on the ground floor and the respondents have been given rights on the

roof. There is no error in the judgment of the High Court and the appeal

deserved to be dismissed.

Page 6 of 10

18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the relevant referred record.

19. The case in hand is an example of the bitterness amongst

the legal heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral with regard to the

partition of the properties left by him. It is ‘properties’ vs ‘proper ties’.

‘Short term gain’ vs ‘Long terms relations’. One can either get share in

the properties that too by litigating or can maintain proper ties amongst

the family members with little give and take, and not going to the extent

of minute details. It may not be a matter of dispute that none of the legal

heirs of Late Rameshwar Nath Soral had contributed anything in

acquisition of the plots or construction of the properties by themselves.

Whatever is given to them is a kind of bounty but still they being

greedy, not satisfied with whatever they received, are litigating for last

more than two decades.

20. After the valuation of the property was done by the

approved Valuer appointed by the court, after the preliminary decree

was passed, the Trial Court determined the portions of the property

(bearing Plot No.5, Professor Colony, Nayapura, Kota) coming to the

share of four parties. Keeping in view the fact that, the property at Kota

could not be partitioned with metes and bounds in four shares and the

property at Jaipur was being maintained by Usha Sharma.

Page 7 of 10

21. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court dated

03.01.2009 shows that certain objections were raised by the parties

with reference to valuation of the property. However, it is not evident

that the appellants raised any objection. Certain objections were

raised regarding valuation of the property at Jaipur, however, the

Court rejected the same. The Court also recorded that the proposal put

forth by the parties for partition was agreed in principle and thereafter

the properties were partitioned.

22. The partition of property in question amongst the legal heirs

was upheld by the High Court. Certain additional rights were given to

two legal heirs, namely, Mahendra Nath Soral and Asha Soral, 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. If the argument raised by the

appellants is to be accepted at this stage, the same would amount to

coming back to square one, where all the properties will have to be

revalued for the purpose of partition and this will open a new chapter

of litigation between the parties. In our opinion that course is not the

appropriate one in the case in hand, once the rights of the parties and

their shares were determined by the Trial Court in the final decree

Page 8 of 10 dated 03.01.2009 and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by

the High Court on 19.09.2018.

23. The case in hand was one of the most appropriate case in

which the Court should have tried for resolution of dispute by adopting

alternate means namely mediation and conciliation. This Court in

Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction

Company Private Limited and Others6 had opined that dispute

relating to partition/division amongst family members/coparceners

/co-owners should normally be settled through Alternative Disputes

Redressal (ADR) Process. Reference can be made to para 28 thereof:

“28. All other suits and cases of civil nature in particular the following categories of cases (whether pending in civil courts or other special tribunals/forums) are normally suitable for ADR processes:

(i) xxxx

(ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including

• disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; • disputes relating to partition/division among family members/coparceners/co- owners; and • disputes relating to partnership among partners.

(iii) xxxx 6 (2010) 8 SCC 24: 2010 INSC 431

Page 9 of 10 (iv) xxxx

(v) xxxx

The above enumeration of “suitable” and “unsuitable” categorisation of cases is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid. They are illustrative, which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the court/tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process.”

23.1 The Courts are required to explore these methods for

amicable settlement of family disputes.

24. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit

in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

……………………………….……………..J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

……………………………….……………..J. (PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE)

New Delhi May 03, 2024.

Page 10 of 10