Need Quick Resolution Of Final Decree Proceedings: Karnataka High Court Urges Amendment Of CPC
The High Court observed that it is high time to revisit and suitably amend the procedural law to ensure expeditious disposal of final decree proceedings in partition suits.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has called for a comprehensive legislative review of the procedure governing final decree proceedings in partition suits, highlighting that the current system allows matters to remain pending for years even after preliminary decrees attain finality.
The Court was hearing a second appeal arising from a long-pending final decree proceeding under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein disputes continued over the implementation of a preliminary decree already confirmed by the lower courts.
A Bench comprising Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while deciding the matter, observed that “when it comes to delay in court proceedings, partition suits occupy the top of the list, among various categories of litigation”, and accordingly suggested that “it is high time to revisit the law and to suitably amend it to facilitate the quick resolution of final decree proceedings”.
Advocate P.N. Harish appeared for the appellants, while G.C. Shanmukha, M.V. Maheshwarappa, and Umesh Moolimani represented the respondents.
Background
The appeal stemmed from a partition dispute where, despite the preliminary decree attaining finality, the division of properties was not carried out in accordance with it. The appellants contended that the final decree had been drawn contrary to the scope of the preliminary decree.
Upon perusal of the record, the Karnataka High Court found that the preliminary decree had not been effectively implemented. It therefore set aside the impugned orders of the lower courts, remanding the matter for a fresh final decree in accordance with the original adjudication.
Before issuing operative directions, however, the High Court addressed the systemic problem of inordinate delay in partition matters and the absence of a cohesive statutory framework to ensure the timely completion of final decree proceedings.
Court’s Observation
The Karnataka High Court noted that partition suits constitute one of the slowest categories of civil proceedings, often taking decades to conclude, explaining that “one of the reasons why the final decree proceedings take a longer time is that the person in exclusive possession of the property, or a larger portion of the property for which there is a decree for partition and separate possession, gets unduly benefited by the delay and he does everything to delay the proceeding.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shub Karan Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna (2009), which had observed that the present procedural system for partition suits was “outmoded and unsuited for present requirements.” The Apex Court had further urged Parliament and the Law Commission to reform the law so that “the suit will be a continuous process from the stage of its initiation to the stage of securing actual relief.”
The High Court also cited Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors., (2022), where the Supreme Court directed trial courts to proceed suo motu with the final decree process immediately after passing a preliminary decree, without requiring a separate application.
In line with these earlier pronouncements, Justice Hegde reiterated that “it is high time to revisit the law and to suitably amend it to facilitate the quick resolution of final decree proceedings.”
Clarifying that these suggestions were not an attempt to legislate, the Court stated: Before concluding, it is clarified that the Court is not legislating any law. The Court has no such power. The endeavor is only to invite the attention of the stakeholders to resolve the issue, which unfortunately has been lingering or haunting (rather) since the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or may be much earlier.”
Conclusion
In the matter at hand, while allowing the appeal in part, the High Court set aside the decrees passed by the lower courts and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for passing a fresh final decree in conformity with the preliminary decree. It further directed that the division of properties be effected either through mutual arrangement between the parties or with the assistance of a court-appointed commissioner.
The Bench further instructed that once the final decree is drawn, it shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional revenue authorities for necessary entries under Section 132(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Cause Title: Veerabhadrappa v. Channappa Gowda D (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:39137)
Appellants: Advocate P.N. Harish
Respondents: Advocates G.C. Shanmukha, M.V. Maheshwarappa, and Umesh Moolimani
