NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a woman who had been fighting for her share in a flat jointly bought with her husband, a battle that dragged on for nearly 15 years despite winning a court order in her favour in 2012.The bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and K.V. Viswanathan noted pointedly that “the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree,” which means that winning a case is only half the battle and getting the order enforced is another fight altogether.What was the dispute about?Jennifer Messias and her husband Peter Messias bought a flat in Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in 1991 using money contributed by both of them. The couple separated in 2003.Jennifer approached the court seeking her half of the flat, arguing that as a co-owner she was entitled to her share regardless of what her husband did with his portion. A trial court agreed with her in April 2012 — two years before Peter’s death — ruling that she was entitled to “partition of the suit property and possession of her one-half share” and was also owed Rs 1,500 per month as rent for being kept out of her own property.Shortly before his death, Peter made a will on March 22, 2014 leaving his share of the flat to a man named Leonard G. Lobo. Peter died four days later. Lobo has been living in the flat ever since.A court-appointed inspector then examined the flat and found it was too small to be physically split between two people. So the executing court ordered that the flat be auctioned and the money divided equally between Jennifer and Lobo.But the Madhya Pradesh high court stepped in — twice — and stopped the auction both times, saying a further court order was needed before the flat could be sold.What did the Supreme Court ruling say?The Supreme Court rejected the high court’s reasoning and ordered the auction to go ahead.The court said that the 2012 order had already settled everything — who owned what, who owed rent, and what should happen if the flat could not be physically divided. Asking Jennifer to go back and get yet another court order was unwanted.“The direction to file a fresh application after the passing of a Final Decree is completely unwanted,” the court observed.The bench further added that stopping the auction proceedings was “an illegal exercise of jurisdiction” and restored Jennifer’s case to where it was before the high court intervened.Since Jennifer is now in her seventies, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to complete the auction within two months.