Introduction of the Facts
Ratna Man Manandhar has two sons, Ganesh Man and Prem Man, and a younger daughter, Ratna Devi. 

Applicant’s Claim (Prem Man):
They had been living jointly (sagol) but Prem Man started living separately without proper partition after 2027 B.S. and on that basis, the elder brother i.e. Ganesh Man had taken the responsibility of all the movable and immovable joint property, as their father had already died of cancer.Ganesh Man refused to partition the joint property into 3 parts and give one-third of it to Prem Man, so Prem Man filed a complaint for partition of the joint property in the Kathmandu District Court. 

Defendant’s Claim (Ganesh Man): 
Ratna Man Manandhar, himself, had given me the house of Tankeswar Panchayat, Kathmandu and I currently reside there.
The profit earned from Juddha Barun Yantra Thekka ( Fire brigade), which was in existent when my father was still alive, is all taken by Prem Man. We have not been released (fursad napaaeko) from the contract under the Amount and Governmental Contract Arrangement Act, 2020(1963). Our sister, Ratna Devi has not reached the age of 35 so the property need not be divided into three parts. 
Moreover, until and unless we are freed from the contract under the Amount and Governmental Contract Arrangement Act, no partition should take place. 

RATNA DEVI’S STATEMENT: 
I have already reached the age of 38 and I should get one-third of the joint property that is to be partitioned. 
Questions before the Court: 
Can the amount that is to be paid to the government be considered as debt to be partitioned under the Muluki Ain? 
If the remaining government amount is not debt, then what is it? Should it be paid or not? 
If it should be paid, then should it not be construed as debt? 

In deciding these questions, the court has given thought to the legislative intent of the Chapter on Partition of Muluki Ain.
The claim that the remaining government amount to be paid does not fall under debt is a hyper literal interpretation of the Chapter on Partition and deviates from the very purpose and principe of ‘partition of property and debt’ under this chapter. 
Interpretation of laws should be legal but at the same time it should be reasonable as well.

Decisions of Different Courts

Decision of Kathmandu District Court 

Both the parties have accepted Ratna Devi as their sister and as she has already crossed 35 years of age, she also has a right in the property to be partitioned. The court decided that property should be partitioned into three portions and the Applicant Prem Man should get one-third of the joint property that has been ascertained at the time of filing the case. The debt that is to be paid shall be divided when a complaint regarding that is filed.

Decision of Central Regional Court 

The remaining amount that is to be paid to the government under the contract is not a loan transaction between the lender and borrower, but simply an amount that is still to be paid to the government. It falls under the joint responsibility of the coparceners, so the amount to be paid to the government i.e. Rs. 61783/18 is to be divided into 3 parts and the applicant has to pay one part of it i.e. rs 20561\06. 

The appellant parties need to file a separate case against Krishna Devi and claim their rights. 
Decision of Supreme Court .
It is evident that all government amounts need to be paid to the government, so there is no confusion in considering the amount in dispute as debt. According to No.26 of the Chapter on Punishment, the ones who get the property should bear the amount that is to be paid to the government.

The coparceners should pay the debt equally, but since the amount to be paid is not fixed, Prem Man does not have to pay the amount until such amount is determined. The regional court should have decided whether the house that is in Krishna Devi’s name comes under joint property or not. It gave its decision without considering all the evidences, so its decision is quashed. The house is the personal property of Krishna Devi as she bought it after taking loans in her name, repaired it by herself and Ganesh Man has never lodged a complaint claiming his right over the house even when she mortgaged it.

So, the house is the personal property of Krishna Devi and need not be partitioned under joint property. 

Hyper Literal Interpretation 

Hyper literal interpretation is the extreme literal interpretation.When the meaning of the just a sentence is taken and interpretate it on extreme literal way then the interpretation will be hyper literal. A rigid reading that leads to unjust outcomes goes against the law’s purpose.