'Fresh Partition Cannot Follow an Acknowledged Earlier Partition': SC Sets Aside Partition Decree

The Supreme Court recently set aside concurrent findings of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, holding that a fresh partition cannot be ordered when the existence of an earlier partition has already been acknowledged.

Dismissing the underlying partition suit, the bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma concluded that the lower courts’ reasoning on the validity of a registered gift deed central to the case was legally untenable. 

A property dispute arose between two branches of a family descended from brothers Tukru Gope and Palat Gope. The plaintiffs, who are Tukru Gope’s descendants, had approached the civil court claiming that the family properties remained joint and that no division had ever taken place. Opposing them, the defendants, who are descendants of Palat Gope, relied on a registered gift deed executed by the first plaintiff himself in favour of his daughter. The deed recorded that a prior partition had already been effected, and that the portion gifted was in the donor’s exclusive possession.

The trial court accepted this position and held that a partition had already occurred. It further held that the properties standing in the name of Palat Gope and his successors constituted their self-acquired properties. On this basis, the trial court dismissed the claim for partition.

On appeal, the First Appellate Court concurred with the finding that the properties recorded in the names of the defendants’ branch were self-acquired. However, it refused to rely on the registered gift deed. It reasoned that the defendants had not explained how the document came to be registered the very next day after the suit was filed. Without disturbing the trial court’s conclusions on self-acquisition, the appellate court nevertheless held that there was no actual partition by metes and bounds. It proceeded to decree partition in respect of the remaining properties. The High Court later affirmed this view.

Before the Supreme Court, the defendants challenged the appellate court's rejection of the gift deed and its finding that a fresh partition was required. The bench agreed that the lower courts’ approach could not be sustained.

“When there is a partition in fact and the same has been acknowledged by the First Appellate Court, there cannot be any decree for a fresh partition,” the bench held, observing that the appellate court contradicted its own acceptance of the earlier division.

It further held that the reasoning used to disregard the gift deed was legally flawed. The document was a registered instrument executed by the original plaintiff, and at no point had the respondents disputed its execution. Court held that, in such circumstances, placing the burden on the defendants to prove an undisputed registered document was impermissible.

The bench also noted that the contents of the gift deed expressly recorded the partition and separate possession of the property that was later gifted. Despite this, the courts below proceeded on the basis that no partition had taken place, a conclusion the bench found unsupportable on the material before them.

Holding that the findings of the appellate court and the High Court on the validity of the gift deed were “nothing but perverse,” the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief in the suit.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the High Court to the extent they operated against the defendants. It dismissed the partition suit in its entirety.

Case Title: Devan Gope @ Devnandan Yadav & Ors Vs Pavitri Devi & Ors

Judgment Date: November 19, 2025

Bench: Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma