Jaffar Ali Butt vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar, etc.
This matter concerns a dispute over the partition of an inherited property located in Mochi Gate, Lahore, following the death of Ghulam Hussain. The legal heirs, comprising the petitioners and the respondents, failed to reach a consensus on the valuation and division of the estate. The core legal question was whether the property, being indivisible and subject to conflicting valuation reports by various local commissioners, should be partitioned by metes and bounds or sold through public auction under the Partition Act, 1893. The Trial Court, affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court, ordered a public auction of the property. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, finding the impugned order unexceptionable given the circumstances. The Court affirmed the principle that where a disputed property is indivisible and no feasible agreement can be reached between parties with equal shares, a public auction is the appropriate legal remedy, allowing all parties the right to participate in the bidding process to purchase the shares of the other side.
- When a disputed property is indivisible and parties cannot agree on valuation, is public auction the appropriate remedy?
- Does the Partition Act, 1893 allow parties to participate in the auction of a property they co-own?
- Can a court order the sale of property through public auction when heirs fail to agree on its market value?
- Section 3(1), Partition Act 1893
FALAK SHER, J. --- Consequent upon demise of one Ghulam Hussain his legal heirs comprising six sons and two daughters viz. The petitioners and Munawar Hussain predecessor-in-interest of the respondents got entangled with each other over devolution of his estate including the latter's suit for possession through partition alongwith mesne profits of the spell out house situated in Mochi Gate, Lahore, before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 3.7.1997; wherein petitioner's counsel on 14.5.1998 conceding the respondents' claim offered to purchase their share in the house on the basis of the prevalent market value. Pursuant whereto a local commissioner was appointed to ascertain the market value of the property who vide report dated 24.6.1998 opined it to be worth beyond Rs. 12,00,000/- Accordingly with the consent of the parties a preliminary decree was passed on 5.10.1998 which on appeal was affirmed by Additional District Judge, Lahore on 5.4.2000, directing the Trial Court to proceed with the matter after appointing fresh local commissioner.
2. Whereafter the second local commissioner opined its value ranging between Rs. 10,00,000/- to 12.00,000/-. To which the respondents joining issue asserted that the property is worth more than Rs. 16,00,000/- while the petitioner contended it to be not more than Rs. 5,00,000/-; resultantly granting the respondents' application on 27.6.2000, the property was ordered to be auctioned, fixing Rs. 12,00,000/- as the reserve price.
3. Which on appeal was set aside by an Additional District Judge on 2.5.1.2001 requiring the Trial Court to determine proper valuation of the property, further observing that the respondents having applied for the auction were de-barred from participating therein under Section 3(1) of the Partition Act, 1893, whereafter third local commissioner was assigned the task who, vide report dated 21.2.2002 stated it to be worth Rs. 7,00,000/- which was challenged by the respondents while the petitioner offered to purchase their share at reasonable price. The Trial Judge declining the request on 12.7.2000 directed that the property be put to auction, which was maintained by an Additional District Judge turning down petitioner's Appeal on 11 11.2002.
4. Legality whereof was assailed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court in Revision (C.R. No. 165 2003) pressing into service Section 3(1) of the Act, ibid. Which meted with the same fate vide the impugned order dated 19.3.2003 opining, that the property being indivisible was to put it for sale through auction with a right to the petitioner to participate therein, placing reliance on the precedent law reported lsrar Muhammad Khan and others v. Senior Civil Judge, Lahore and others (1990 SCM R 693):--- 'Both parties having equal shares in disputed property which was indivisible---No feasible agreement could be worked out---Public auction of disputed property was ordered and petitioners were allowed to participate in the auction to enable them to purchase the share of the other side."
5. Hence, the captioned petition for leave to appeal reiterating the prayer. With which we are not impressed for the impugned order on the circumstances of the case is unexceptionable.
Resultantly the same fail and is hereby dismissed leave declined.