Criticizing a decades-long legal battle as a “comedy of errors,” the Supreme Court of India has cleared the way for a septuagenarian woman to finally receive her share of a jointly owned flat, ruling that technicalities must not be allowed to frustrate justice.
A division bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and S V N Bhatti ordered the immediate restoration of execution proceedings for the flat located in Jabalpur. In its May 18 order, the top court directed the trial court to complete the public auction of the property and apportion the proceeds within two months, citing the advanced age of the woman.
The roots of the dispute trace back to 1980, when the couple was married. In 1991, they pooled their combined incomes to purchase a flat in Jabalpur. However, the relationship soured, leading to a legal separation in 2003, which was officially confirmed by the court in 2004.
While the estranged husband retained physical possession of the flat, the woman launched a legal battle for partition and separate possession. On April 13, 2012, a trial court issued a decree declaring that both parties held an equal 50 percent share in the property. The court ruled that the woman was entitled to possession of her half alongside a monthly payment of Rs 1,500 in mesne profits (damages for unauthorized occupation). Crucially, the 2012 decree specified that if the flat could not be physically divided, it should be sold and the proceeds split.
What followed was a labyrinth of procedural hurdles that stalled justice for over a decade.
When the woman first attempted to execute the order in 2013, her petition was dismissed because the courts classified the 2012 ruling as merely a “preliminary decree.” Forced to file for a “final decree,” the proceedings were further complicated by her estranged husband’s death on March 26, 2014.
Following his demise, another man stepped forward claiming rights to the husband’s share, pointing to a registered will dated March 22, 2015. This relative moved into the flat, claiming possession through the late husband.
In 2019, a court-appointed advocate commissioner inspected the premises and reported that the flat was too small to be physically divided “by metes and bounds.” Recognizing this, the executing court ordered a public auction so the proceeds could be distributed.
However, the litigation took another turn in 2023 when the Madhya Pradesh High Court halted the execution proceedings. The High Court ruled in favor of the deceased husband’s relative, asserting that because the 2012 decree was “preliminary,” the woman was required to obtain a completely separate final decree before any auction could take place. Aggrieved by this setback, the woman appealed to the Supreme Court in 2026.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the legal representatives presented sharply contrasting views on the nature of the 2012 decree:
- For the Appellant (The Woman): Advocate Abhishek Gulatee argued that the High Court made a “fundamental error” by focusing strictly on the technical nomenclature of the 2012 decree. He emphasized that the executing court had already initiated a public auction where both parties had actively engaged in bids and counterbids. Gulatee maintained that the 2012 decree was functionally final, making any demand for a fresh final decree application a “purely academic pursuit.”
- For the Respondent (The Husband’s Relative): Advocate Siddharth R Gupta countered that under law, a preliminary decree simply declares rights and is not executable on its own. He argued that execution proceedings could not be maintained until a formal final decree was passed. Gupta also contended that the woman was not entitled to the accrued mesne profits, claiming that she was responsible for the extensive delays.
The Supreme Court rejected the procedural barriers raised by the respondent, stating that requiring a fresh application after a final decree had already determined the rights was “completely unwanted.”
The bench held that for the ends of justice to be met, the 2012 decree must be construed as having determined both the entitlement to possession and the mesne profits.
“The outcome of the adjudication appears simple, but the civil appeals exemplify the comedy of errors,” the apex court noted in its order.
To bring the long-standing saga to a close, the Supreme Court directed the executing court to proceed with the public auction. Both the septuagenarian woman and the late husband’s relative are permitted to participate in the bidding alongside outside buyers.
The top court ordered the trial court to calculate and deduct the outstanding mesne profits from the sale proceeds for the woman, and distribute the remaining balance of the husband’s 50 percent share to his relative. Emphasizing the woman’s age, the Supreme Court mandated that the entire process be wrapped up within a strict timeline of two months.
