M/s. Multicon Builders vs. Sumandevi & Ors.
Background
A widow had filed a partition suit for family property, and the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree in 2012 determining shares among the plaintiff and eight defendants, while holding that Multicon Builders (defendant no. 9, the appellant) had no right, title, or claim in the property, and directing demolition of construction raised in violation of municipal laws. Only Multicon Builders, not any actual family co-sharer, appealed to the Bombay High Court, which largely upheld the Trial Court's order but modified it to specifically require two defendants to demolish construction on the plot. Multicon claimed it had acquired rights because one co-sharer, Chandrashekhar Deshmukh, had transferred his share to it, and that it had spent heavily constructing a commercial complex on part of the property.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that none of the actual family co-sharers had challenged the preliminary decree fixing their respective shares, and the only challenge came from Multicon, a non-family claimant asserting rights through one co-sharer's alleged transfer. Since the final decree (which would physically divide the property by metes and bounds) was still pending, the Court held that any protection Multicon might be entitled to, if it succeeds in showing the transfer, could still be worked out at that later stage. On demolition, the Court held that tearing down already-built structures at this stage would not serve any party's interest and that the question of authorised versus unauthorised construction could instead be addressed when the final decree is passed. The High Court's order was modified accordingly, the appeals were disposed of, and the Trial Court was directed to expedite the pending final decree proceedings, with the Supreme Court clarifying it expressed no opinion on the underlying merits.
Lesson Learnt
A person claiming property rights only through one co-sharer's transfer, and who is not himself a family co-sharer, cannot expect a partition decree affecting the whole family's shares to be reopened at his instance alone; such claims, and questions about unauthorised construction, are better resolved at the final decree stage rather than through immediate demolition.