Supreme Court Intervenes in Sibling Property Dispute, Orders Deposit and Status Quo.


25 September 2025 Family dispute over inherited property >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent intervention in an age-old family real estate dispute, the Supreme Court of India has intervened in a partition case between three siblings. The case, which originated in a Delhi High Court judgment, pertains to a communal property that is impossible to divide physically, and hence an agreement for intra-party bidding among the owners was made.

The matter started from a prima facie partition order granted in May 2019, when the brothers agreed to inter-se bidding to settle ownership since each of them had an equal one-third share. A local commissioner was tasked with facilitating the process but was stalled when one brother did not make timely bids even after several extensions. Later, the collective bid of the other two siblings worth Rs 4.05 crore was approved by a single judge in August 2025 and another review petition was rejected in September 2025.


 

 
 
 

Defying this, the offended brother petitioned the Delhi High Court. While hearing, he offered a higher valuation of Rs 6.25 crore for the property, which the respondents countered. The High Court, considering the appellant's intermittent involvement and extended occupation of the land from 2019, ruled in the respondents' favor. It directed them to refund the appellant's one-third share, after adjusting Rs 1.35 crore already paid, within eight weeks. The appellant was also directed to deliver possession on payment and prohibited from transferring rights to third parties.

Taking the matter to the next level, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition. On September 25, 2025, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan entertained submissions from senior advocate Madhavi Divan appearing for the petitioner. The court observed the use of the property as a factory by the petitioner as well as the unworkability of division. In a dramatic twist, the counsel for the petitioner communicated his readiness to invest two-thirds of the Rs 6.25 crore valuation—equivalent to his share for purchasing the respondents' shares—within two weeks.

The bench ordered the petitioner to file an affidavit of undertaking within three days, assuring the deposit in the registry of the court. Once received, the money would be invested in a fixed deposit at a nationalized bank for the first three months, renewable automatically. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed direct service, fixing the next hearing on October 10, 2025. Pending resolution, all parties must preserve the property's current state, including its condition and occupancy.

This temporary order reflects the court's focus on fair resolution in family disputes under the guarantee of procedural fairness. The judgment may create a precedent for the resolution of such inheritance and bidding disputes in undivided properties