‘Comedy of errors’: Supreme Court ends elderly woman’s decades-old property row, clears stalled auction of Jabalpur flat

The matter turned complicated after the death of the estranged husband when another man came forward claiming rights over the property based on a registered will allegedly executed by the late husband.

“The outcome of the adjudication appears simple, but the civil appeals exemplify the comedy of errors,” the May 18 order stated.

Justices K V Viswanathan and S V N Bhatti noted that the woman and her estranged husband were married in 1980 and they purchased a flat in 1991.

‘2012 decree determined rights, possession’

• The Supreme Court pointed out that the decree dated April 13, 2012, for all purposes, determined the entitlement or right to possession and mesne profits.
• It also pointed out the first option regarding the mode and manner of working out the shares, in the event of default in the sale of the flat, the court added. 
• The top court mentioned that the direction to file a fresh application after the passing of a final decree is completely unwanted. 
• In this case, for the ends of justice to be met, the decree should be construed, the Supreme Court held. 
• It directed the executing court to conduct the auction and apportion the same between the parties.
• It was added that while apportioning, the trial court should consider the mesne profits and distribute the balance to the late husband’s said relative. 
• It was further mentioned that the parties are permitted to bid along with other participants in the course of the sale of the flat.
• The Supreme Court noted that the woman is a septuagenarian and directed the trial court to complete the proceedings within two months. 

Marriage, flat and litigation

• The couple got married in 1980. In 1991, they purchased a flat in Jabalpur from their combined income.
• The couple legally separated in 2003, which this court confirmed in 2004. 
• The husband allegedly had possession of the flat, the Supreme Court was informed. 
• Subsequently, the woman filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the flat. The trial court, in its April 13, 2012, order, passed a preliminary decree. 
• The decree pointed out that both the estranged husband and wife had a 50 per cent share and the woman was entitled to possession of her share.
• The court clarified that she should receive Rs 1,500 monthly mesne profits. It was also added that if the flat could not be physically divided, it could be sold and the sale proceeds divided.

Question of ‘preliminary decree’

• Subsequently, the woman tried to execute the decree, but her execution petition was dismissed in 2013 because courts treated the decree as only a “preliminary decree.” She then filed proceedings for a final decree.
• During this proceeding, the husband died on March 26, 2014, and another man claimed to be representing his interests based on a registered will dated March 22, 2015. 
• The said relative of the estranged husband has remained in possession of the flat by claiming through the late husband. 
• Subsequently, a court-appointed advocate commissioner inspected the flat and submitted a report in 2019 stating that it was too small, and it could not be divided “by metes and bounds” through physical partition. 
• Based on this, the executing court ordered the auction/sale of the flat.
• However, the said relative of the estranged husband approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court which eventually stopped the execution proceedings in 2023, saying that the 2012 decree was only a ‘preliminary decree’ and the woman first needed a separate final decree before execution.
• Aggrieved, the woman approached the Supreme Court in 2026. 

‘Fundamental error’ in HC order

Appearing for the woman, advocate Abhishek Gulatee submitted before the Supreme Court that a fundamental error in the high court’s appreciation is that it proceeds on the nomenclature assigned to the 2012 decree. 

He added that the executing court rightly ordered the public auction of the flat, and there have been bids and counterbids from both the woman and the other man. It was argued that the preliminary decree itself is final, and the auction of the flat is the only solution. 

It was further stated that filing an application for a final decree is not merely procedural but a purely academic pursuit. 

Non-executable preliminary decree

Representing the estranged husband’s relative, advocate Siddharth R Gupta argued before the Supreme Court that the 2012 decree is a pure and simple preliminary decree. 

He said that in law, a preliminary decree is not executed as it merely determines the rights to which the parties are entitled. It was added that the executable decree becomes available upon the passing of the final decree. 

It was argued that execution proceedings are not maintainable and that the previous orders have attained finality, adding that the woman was not entitled to any mesne profits because the delay is attributable to her.