Supreme Court: What is distinction between jurisdictional bar to the institution of a suit and a saving clause?

The import of the foregoing decisions, read together, is that Section 6(5) is a saving clause of strict and narrow application. It saves from the retroactive reach of the 2005 Amendment only those partitions that have been effected that is, completed and finalised before 20.12.2004 by a registered deed or a court decree. It does not create a jurisdictional bar to the institution of a suit. The distinction between a "bar" and a "saving clause" is legally significant. While a bar prevents the Court from entertaining the suit at all, but a saving clause on the other hand provides a defence on merits that must be proved by the party asserting it.

{Para 53}

54. In the present case, the plaint does not admit a concluded and binding partition. It characterises the registered Partition Deed of 2000 as having been executed by the wife and sons on the back of the daughters, without their knowledge or consent. The validity of such a partition executed secretly behind the daughters' backs without giving them any share is quintessentially a contested question of fact and law requiring evidence on the nature of the property, the mode of devolution, and the validity of the alleged partitions (oral, Palupatti, and registered). To treat Section 6(5) as foreclosing this inquiry at the threshold is to conflate the existence of a registered deed with the conclusion that the partition is valid and binding on all persons. That conflation is impermissible at the stage of Order VII Rule 11.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7939 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23709 of 2024)

B.S. Lalitha and Ors. Vs. Bhuvanesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Augustine George Masih and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Augustine George Masih, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 499, MANU/SC/0483/2026

Dated: MAY 15, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page