Supreme Court Dismisses SLP in Long-Standing Family Partition Dispute
In a recent development underscoring the Supreme Court’s strict stance on procedural lapses, delays, and suppression of facts in property disputes, the Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a High Court judgment in a partition suit.
The case involved a prolonged family property dispute originating from a 2004 original suit (O.S. No. 181/2004), where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the second appeal (S.A. No. 427 of 2010) on December 26, 2023, upholding concurrent findings on joint family property division.
The petitioners filed an SLP in 2026, seeking to stay execution of the preliminary decree and condone significant delay. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, highlighting issues that are increasingly common in such matters.
676-Day SLP Delay: Why the Supreme Court Rejects Last-Minute Appeals
Special Leave Petition (SLP) rejected after 676-day delay – landmark case shows how the Supreme Court dismisses appeals filed solely to stall execution of decrees. Learn the legal strategy to oppose such petitions.*
What Happened in This Case?
A property dispute went through three courts over 15 years before reaching the Supreme Court. The losing party filed an SLP 676 days late – that’s almost two years after the High Court decision. During this delay, they actively participated in execution proceedings, even drawing lots for property division, only to appeal when warrants were issued.
Background of the Dispute
The underlying litigation concerned partition of joint family properties in Biccavolu Village, East Godavari District, including agricultural lands (‘A’ schedule) and residential houses (‘B’ schedule).
The plaintiff sought division based on joint family acquisition, while defendants claimed self-acquired portions, prior partition, and a will/codicil by the missing father (presumed dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
- Trial Court (2009): Decreed partition into 16 shares, allotting 5 to the plaintiff.
- First Appellate Court (2010): Upheld the decree.
- High Court (2023): Dismissed the second appeal, finding no substantial question of law, concurrent findings on joint nature, unproved will, and valid presumption of death.
Execution proceedings advanced post-High Court judgment, with final decree applications, commissioner reports, and notices for surveyor assistance and break-open orders.
Grounds for SLP Dismissal
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP without issuing notice, relying on established principles:
Inordinate Delay Without Sufficient Cause
A delay of over 676 days from the High Court judgment was unexplained. No day-to-day justification, medical evidence, or exceptional circumstances were provided.
The petitioners participated in execution (e.g., lottery for shares) but delayed filing, indicating dilatory intent. Recent precedents show the Court routinely dismisses SLPs for unexplained delays, as unexplained lapses can extinguish rights and frustrate justice.
Suppression of Material Facts and Misrepresentations
The petition suppressed key facts, such as a prior decree declaring the father “deemed dead” in another suit (O.S. No. 603/2009), while arguing maintainability issues.
Claims of ignored sale deeds were contradicted by the High Court’s detailed discussion. Admissions (e.g., lack of funds for self-acquisition) and procedural failures (e.g., withholding attesting witnesses for the will) were downplayed.
The Court has repeatedly held that suppression of material facts warrants harsh measures, including dismissal with costs, to deter misleading filings.
Concurrent Findings of Three Courts
No perversity or substantial question of law arose. Trial, appellate, and High Court rulings aligned on joint family status, invalid will/codicil, and adverse inference from non-testimony (e.g., mother abstaining from witness box). Article 136 is not for reappreciating facts; interference is rare absent gross injustice.
Execution Stage and Lack of Prima Facie Case
With execution advanced (warrants issued), any stay would cause irreparable harm. Balance of convenience favored the decree-holder after 20+ years of litigation.
The dismissal reinforces that SLPs in partition suits are not automatic appeals—discretionary relief requires clean hands, prompt action, and merit.
FAQs: Understanding SLP Delays, Supreme Court Appeals & Execution Stays
Q1: What is an SLP (Special Leave Petition) in the Supreme Court?
A: An SLP is a discretionary appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution asking the Supreme Court to grant special permission to appeal against any judgment, decree, or order of any court or tribunal in India. It’s not a right but a privilege granted by the Court.
Q2: What is the time limit for filing an SLP?
A: The statutory limitation period is 90 days from the date of the judgment/order appealed against. In exceptional cases, the Court may condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.
Q3: What constitutes “sufficient cause” for delay in filing an SLP?
A: Valid reasons include:
-
Medical emergencies with documented proof
-
Natural calamities preventing access to legal help
-
Genuine inability to obtain certified copies despite diligent efforts
-
Extraordinary circumstances beyond the litigant’s control
Q4: What reasons are NOT accepted for delay?
A: Courts typically reject:
-
Generic excuses like “arranging funds” or “consulting lawyers”
-
“Remote location” claims without proof of inability to access legal help
-
Negligence or casual approach to filing
-
Deliberate tactics to delay execution of decree
Q5: What is “material suppression” in an SLP?
A: When a petitioner hides or conceals important facts that could influence the Court’s decision. This is considered fraud on the court and can lead to outright dismissal of the petition.
Q6: What are “concurrent findings” and why do they matter?
A: When multiple courts (Trial + Appellate + High Court) reach the same factual conclusions. The Supreme Court generally does not interfere with concurrent findings unless there’s gross perversity or a substantial question of law.
Q7: Can I file an SLP just to delay execution of a decree?
A: No. Courts view this as abuse of process. If execution is already underway and you file a belated SLP solely to stall it, the Court may:
-
Dismiss the SLP with costs
-
Refuse to grant stay of execution
-
Penalize the petitioner for mala fide conduct
Q8: What is a “caveat” and when should I file one?
A: A caveat is a preemptive notice filed by a potential respondent informing the Court that if the other party files any petition/appeal, the caveator should be heard before any ex-parte order is passed. File it immediately when you anticipate an appeal against your favorable judgment.
Q9: How does the Supreme Court view SLPs filed during execution proceedings?
A: With great skepticism. The Court considers:
-
Stage of execution (how far proceedings have progressed)
-
Conduct of parties during execution
-
Balance of convenience between parties
-
Whether the appeal is genuine or merely dilatory
Q10: What happens if the Supreme Court refuses to entertain an SLP?
A: The lower court judgment stands, and execution proceedings continue uninterrupted. The petitioner may also face costs for filing a frivolous petition.
Q11: Can a delay of 676 days (like in the case discussed) ever be condoned?
A: Extremely unlikely. The Court requires:
-
Day-to-day explanation for the entire delay period
-
Documentary proof supporting each reason
-
Evidence that delay wasn’t deliberate
-
Strong prima facie case on merits
Q12: What is “adverse inference” in property dispute cases?
A: When a party claiming ownership refuses to testify or present evidence, courts can draw an unfavorable conclusion against them. For example, if someone claims self-acquisition but won’t enter the witness box, the court may presume they have no proof.
Q13: How do I prove “self-acquisition” in joint family property disputes?
A: You must show:
-
Independent income source at the time of purchase
-
No financial help from joint family funds
-
Registered documents in your name
-
Consistent possession and dealing with the property
Q14: What if the attesting witnesses to a Will are dead/unavailable?
A: Under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, you can prove the Will by:
-
Proving handwriting of at least one attesting witness
-
Proving testator’s signature
-
Providing secondary evidence with valid explanation for non-production of primary evidence
Q15: How long can execution of a property decree take?
A: Typically 1-3 years, but can extend if:
-
Multiple appeals are filed
-
Parties deliberately delay proceedings
-
Property division is complex
-
Third-party interests are involved
Q16: Can I get an ex-parte stay from the Supreme Court?
A: Only in exceptional circumstances where:
-
Irreparable injury will occur if stay isn’t granted
-
Balance of convenience strongly favors you
-
Prima facie case is very strong
-
No alternative remedy exists
Q17: What costs can be imposed for frivolous SLPs?
A: The Supreme Court may award:
-
Litigation costs to the respondent
-
Exemplary costs for abuse of process
-
Costs for suppression of material facts
-
Costs for deliberate delay
Q18: Should I settle if execution is imminent?
A: Consider settlement if:
-
Your appeal has weak merits
-
Execution will cause irreversible changes
-
Settlement terms are reasonable
-
Further litigation will incur substantial costs
Q19: How do I find a good Supreme Court lawyer for my SLP?
A: Look for:
-
Specialization in civil appeals/property matters
-
Track record in SLP matters
-
Transparent fee structure
-
Good communicator who explains legal strategy clearly
