In Brief
The appellant and respondent were co-owners of land that a court ordered to be partitioned. Because one portion—a narrow 6-foot pathway—could not practically be divided, the High Court permitted the respondent to buy out the appellant's share for Rs. 50,000. The appellant challenged this decision without first objecting to the earlier order directing partition. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could modify the partition method at the final decree stage under the Partition Act when partition by metes and bounds became impractical. However, the Court found Rs. 50,000 inadequate and ordered the respondent to pay an additional Rs. 1,00,000, making the total Rs. 1,50,000.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.