Opposing Delayed Special Leave Petitions in Partition Suits

Background: Partition Decree and Execution

• A partition decree was passed in 2009 by the trial court.
• The decree was confirmed by the first appellate court in 2010 and again by the High Court in 2023.
• Execution proceedings were initiated, a commissioner was appointed, reports were filed, and even lottery processes for partition were conducted.
• The judgment debtors actively participated in these proceedings, contesting execution at every stage.

The SLP Challenge

Despite three courts affirming the decree, the judgment debtors approached the Supreme Court with an SLP — but only after a delay of 676 days. Their grounds included alleged misinterpretation of sale deeds, rejection of a will, and questions of maintainability. However, closer scrutiny revealed serious weaknesses.

Grounds to Oppose the SLP

1. Massive Delay Without Explanation

• The SLP was filed nearly two years late.
• No day‑to‑day explanation was provided.
• No medical or exceptional reasons were shown.
• Courts are reluctant to condone such unexplained delays, especially in execution matters.

2. Active Participation in Execution

• Petitioners had already taken part in execution steps, including the lottery process for partition.
• They contested commissioner’s reports and appeared before the trial court.
• Their conduct shows they were never prevented by circumstances — the delay is deliberate.

3. Execution Already in Progress

• Delivery warrants and notices have been issued.
• Partition is being implemented.
• Any stay would unjustly derail lawful execution and prejudice decree‑holders.

4. Concurrent Findings of Fact

• Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court all upheld the decree.
• Supreme Court rarely interferes with three concurrent findings, unless there is perversity — which is absent here.

5. Suppression of Material Facts

• Petitioners suppressed that they themselves obtained a decree declaring the father “deemed dead.”
• They misrepresented that sale deeds were “ignored,” though the High Court discussed them in detail.
• Such suppression undermines credibility and equity.

6. Failure to Prove Will

• Petitioners argued rejection of the will was “hyper‑technical.”
• In reality, they failed to produce attesting witnesses as required under Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
• Procedural failure was theirs, not the Court’s.

7. Adverse Inference Against Claim of Self‑Acquisition

• The person claiming absolute ownership abstained from the witness box.
• Courts rightly drew adverse inference under Section 114(g) Evidence Act.
• No proof of independent income was produced.

Why Notice Should Not Be Issued

Given the extraordinary delay, active participation in execution, suppression of facts, and three concurrent findings of fact, the SLP does not raise any substantial question of law.

It is a tactical attempt to obstruct execution. In such circumstances, decree‑holders are justified in urging the Supreme Court to dismiss the SLP at the threshold without issuing notice.

Legal Takeaway for Practitioners

• Timely opposition matters: Filing a caveat ensures decree‑holders are heard before any interim stay is granted.
• Equity is crucial: Courts weigh conduct heavily — suppression and delay weaken a petitioner’s case.
• Concurrent findings are decisive: Unless there is perversity, the Supreme Court will not reopen settled factual disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: What is an SLP under Article 136, and when is it dismissed at threshold?

A: Special Leave Petition allows appeals to the Supreme Court from High Court orders. It can be dismissed without notice if no substantial question of law exists, delay is unexplained, facts are suppressed, or it seeks to reargue facts.

Q2: Why do delays lead to SLP dismissal in property cases?

A: Limitation periods (90 days for SLPs) are strict. Unexplained delays (e.g., 676 days) indicate lack of bona fides, especially when execution proceeds. Courts emphasize timely justice in family disputes.

Q3: What constitutes suppression of material facts in SLPs?

A: Hiding prior decrees, admissions, or procedural history (e.g., prior death declaration or detailed High Court discussion of evidence) erodes credibility. The Court imposes costs or dismisses to curb such practices.

Q4: Can concurrent findings in partition suits be challenged in Supreme Court?

A: Rarely. If three courts agree on facts (e.g., joint property, unproved will), no interference unless manifest perversity. Article 136 is for exceptional cases, not routine reappreciation.

Q5: How does presumption of death apply in partition suits?

A: Under Section 108 Evidence Act, absence for 7+ years presumes death for inheritance. No separate declaration suit needed if admitted in pleadings; courts apply it directly.

Q6: What happens to execution if SLP is dismissed?

A: Execution continues uninterrupted. Parties can seek final decree allotment, surveyor assistance, or possession enforcement.

Q7: How to avoid SLP dismissal in property disputes?

A: File promptly, disclose all facts, provide evidence for condonation, and focus on substantial legal questions. Engage experienced counsel to avoid procedural pitfalls.

Q8: Are costs common in dismissed SLPs?

A: Yes, especially for delay or suppression. Courts impose costs to deter frivolous litigation and protect decree-holders.

This dismissal highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to finality in family property disputes, preventing endless appeals that prolong suffering. For personalized advice on partition suits, ancestral property, or appeals, consult a qualified lawyer specializing in civil and family law.

Keywords: Supreme Court SLP dismissal, partition suit India, family property dispute, inordinate delay SLP, suppression of facts Supreme Court, concurrent findings property case, presumption of death partition, joint family property division, Article 136 dismissal, High Court partition judgment upheld.