Partition Suit Execution: Supreme Court Rejects Objection on Territorial Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in Sneh Lata Goel vs. Pushplata & Ors., a case concerning the execution of a partition decree and objections raised on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The Court ruled that an executing court cannot go behind a decree and cannot refuse execution based on alleged jurisdictional defects unless the decree itself is inherently void.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a partition suit originally filed by Saroja Rani in 1985 in the Special Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ranchi. The plaintiff sought partition of ancestral properties located in Ranchi and Varanasi. A preliminary decree was passed on June 13, 1990, granting her a one-fourth share in the properties.

A final decree followed on April 5, 1991, confirming the preliminary decree. However, since the plaintiff’s mother was alive at the time, her claim was limited to one-fourth. After the mother’s passing, the partition was adjusted, and a supplementary final decree was issued on December 18, 2013, modifying the share to one-third for each sister.

The decree-holder, Sneh Lata Goel, initiated execution proceedings on May 12, 2014. However, the respondent, Pushplata, objected to the execution, claiming that:

The partition decree was passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.
The decree was a nullity and could not be executed.

The executing court dismissed the objections, affirming that it could not go behind the decree. However, the Jharkhand High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the executing court to consider the jurisdictional challenge. Aggrieved by this decision, the decree-holder appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether an executing court can refuse execution based on territorial jurisdiction concerns.
Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised at the execution stage.
Applicability of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which restricts belated jurisdictional objections.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Sneh Lata Goel – Decree Holder)

An executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as passed.
The partition decree had attained finality, and the respondent had participated in the proceedings.
The objection to jurisdiction should have been raised earlier before the trial court or in an appeal.
The respondent had filed multiple suits challenging the decree, all of which had been dismissed.

Respondents’ Arguments (Pushplata & Ors.)

The partition suit should have been filed in Varanasi, where part of the property was located.
The decree was without jurisdiction and hence a nullity.
An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be raised at the execution stage if it makes the decree void.
The High Court correctly allowed the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, ruled in favor of the appellant.

On the issue of an executing court’s powers, the Court held:

“An executing court cannot go behind the decree. It must take the decree as it stands.”
“Jurisdictional objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity. They cannot be used to obstruct execution.”

Referring to Section 21 of the CPC, the Court noted:

“Territorial jurisdiction does not affect the inherent powers of a court. It is a technical ground that cannot be raised belatedly.”
“Unless the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the decree, the executing court cannot entertain such objections.”

The Court cited Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan (1954) and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (1970), reaffirming that:

“A decree passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction is void, but one passed with only a territorial defect is not.”
“An objection to territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at the execution stage if it was not challenged in the trial.”

The Court also highlighted that the respondent had already challenged the decree multiple times:

A title suit was filed in Ranchi but was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2003.
A title suit in Varanasi was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in 2005.
An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was withdrawn in 2008.
The respondent had also filed a first appeal against the decree in 2015, which was pending.

Based on these facts, the Court concluded that the objections in execution were merely intended to delay implementation of the decree.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the executing court’s ruling:

The executing court must proceed with execution without considering jurisdictional objections.
The respondent’s pending first appeal would not affect execution.
The decree-holder was entitled to get the fruits of the decree without further obstruction.

Legal and Social Implications

The judgment reinforces that territorial jurisdiction is a procedural issue that cannot be used to obstruct execution.
It protects decree-holders from endless litigation delays caused by technical objections.
The ruling ensures that courts focus on substantive justice rather than procedural hurdles.
The decision will serve as a precedent for execution proceedings in similar partition cases.

This ruling strengthens the rights of decree-holders and ensures that executions are not stalled by belated objections.

Petitioner Name: Sneh Lata Goel.
Respondent Name: Pushplata & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Ranchi, Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 07-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sneh Lata Goel vs Pushplata & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 07-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category