The Supreme Court of India has recently ruled that in a suit for partition of joint property, a settlement deed must include the written consent of all parties involved. The court stated that a consent decree reached among only some of the parties is not maintainable.
Case Title: Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors.
BACKGROUND FACTS
In 1969 Mr. Kumar Sahoo passed away and was survived by his three children namely, Ms. Charulata (daughter), Ms. Santilata (daughter) and Mr. Prafulla (son) On 03.12.1980, Ms. Charulata filed a suit for partition before the Trial Court, claiming 1/3rd share in the ancestral as well as self-acquired properties of her deceased father, Mr. Sahoo. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree dated 30.12.1986 and held that Ms. Charulata and Ms. Santilata are entitled to 1/6th share in the ancestral properties and 1/3rd share in the self-acquired properties of Late Kumar Sahoo The Trial Court also directed that the daughters were entitled to mesne profits. However, as regards Mr. Prafulla (son), he was entitled to 4/6th share in the ancestral properties and 1/3rd share in the self-acquired properties of Mr. Sahoo including the mesne profits. Mr. Prafulla filed first appeal before the High Court, contending that all properties of Mr. Sahoo are ancestral properties. During the pendency of the appeal, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla entered into a Settlement Deed dated 28.03.1991, whereby Ms. Santilata relinquished her share in the joint property in favour of Mr. Prafulla, in lieu of a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. However, such a Settlement Deed was not signed by Ms. Charulata who held a share in the joint property. Mr. Prafulla continued litigating a First Appeal before the High Court on the issue of whether certain properties which were the subject matter of partition suit were ancestral or self-acquired by his father. In a parallel appeal, Ms. Charulata challenged the validity of the Settlement Deed dated 28.03.1991, entered between her sister and brother. Mr. Prafulla filed a compromise petition in the said First Appeal pending before the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court disposed the First Appeal while holding the Settlement Deed to be valid and Mr. Prafulla to be entitled to Ms. Santilata’s share of the property. However, nothing was decided on the question of which suit properties were ancestral or self-acquired and a Letter Patent Appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court on this issue alone.
On 05.05.2011, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. Prafulla and invalidated the Settlement Deed entered between Mr. Prafulla and Ms. Santilata. Mr. Prafulla filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the Order dated 05.05.2011. It was argued that amendments brought in 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“Act, 1956”), whereby daughters became equal co-parceners as sons, cannot be pressed into service after so many years. Further, the rights of Ms. Santilata stood extinguished and were transferred to Mr. Prafulla in view of the Settlement Deed.
SUPREME COURT VERDICT
The Bench upheld the allocation of share done by the Trial Court and the Division Bench of High Court and redetermined the shares of the parties. The Settlement Deed has been invalidated by the Bench and Mr. Prafulla cannot claim the share of Ms. Santilata.
Written by Nidhi Bhadauriya, student of 2nd semester BA.LLB from Vivekananda institute of professional studies
