Family property feud behind Supreme Court ruling on floor-wise division of houses in Chandigarh
Chandigarh, January 10
The Supreme Court directions have come in a case of a property dispute involving a Sector 10 family.
According to the prosecution, Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chander Parkash Malhotra considered a dispute with regard to a house in Sector 10A, which, on the death of the original owner, was inherited by his sons and daughters.
Some of the legal heirs, i.e. brothers and sisters of Malhotra, filed a suit for partition of the property in which a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court on September 30, 1983.
In appeal, the District Judge modified some of the findings recorded by the trial court. Thereafter, the proceedings for passing of the final decree were taken up by the trial court. A Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. He submitted the report on February 7, 1989. Petitioner Malhotra raised his objections to the report. The objections were rejected by the trial court. The report of the Local Commissioner was to the effect that the property in dispute could not be partitioned by metes and bounds.
The order of the trial court was challenged before the High Court by way of revision. In the revision, the validity of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules was also challenged.
The Single Judge, vide its judgment dated February 22, 1991, held Rule 14 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, which prohibits fragmentation or amalgamation of any site or building, being ultra vires to the Constitution of India and also beyond the powers of the rulemaking authority.
The judgment of the Single Judge was challenged by the Chandigarh Administration before the Supreme Court.
In the present case, the respondents did not want the partitioning of the plot by metes and bounds. All that they wanted was the partitioning of the building and additions and alterations therein to make separate living units in the same building. Even this partition as well as addition was to be done by them with the approval of the Chandigarh Administration according to its building bylaws.
Plea by Sec 10 house owner’s heirs
- Sec 10 house owner’s legal heirs file suit for partition of property; trial court passes prelim decree in Sept 1983
- In appeal, District Judge modifies trial court findings; Local Commissioner, appointed to suggest mode of partition, submits report in Feb 1989
- Report says property in dispute can’t be partitioned; petitioner Chander Parkash Malhotra raises objection, but it is rejected by trial court
- Order is challenged in High Court by way of revision; validity of Rule 14 of Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960, is also challenged
- HC cites Rule prohibiting fragmentation/amalgamation of site or building ultra vires to the Constitution; UT Admn moves SC against the order
