Back
1996 Supreme(SC) 655
1996(5) Supreme 139
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G. Pattanaik, JJ.
K. Jayadevan Nair -Appellant
versus
Krishna Pillai (died) & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6731 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10020 of 1993)
Decided on 22-3-1996
Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 136-Appeal Partition of property-This Court remitted matter to High Court to consider whether there was any family arrangement-High Court held that there was no family arrangement, therefore, appellant was not entitled to partition and allotment of his share-Appeal-Appellant is in possession of entire property right from 1977-Interest of justice would be met by directing appellant to retain 1/3rd of property and surrender 2/3rd to respondents who are subsequent purchasers from other family members.
Held : The case of the respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the property, therefore, is self-acquired property. Equally the case of the 5th respondent is that his mother also conveyed her own interest. Therefore, it is not partible. It would be obvious that the respondents have had some arrangement; otherwise the appellant would not have had the possession of the property and management thereof. Under these circumstances, we feel that the interests of justice would be met by directing the appellant to retain 1/3rd of the property and surrender the remaining 2/3rd property to the contesting respondents who are the subsequent purchasers from the other family members. The appellant should also return 1/3rd consideration paid by the respondents to the other members in the respective sale deeds. (Para 3)
ORDER
We have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 212/83. It has a chequered history. By order dated July 27, 1992 in C.A. No. 2718/92 this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether there was any family arrangement. The High Court has held that there is no family arrangement. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the partition of the property and allotment of his share in terms thereof. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. The only quesiton raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel for the appellant is : whether the members of the family, there was the arrangement under which the appellant was put in possession of the entire property and he has been in possession right from 1977 under the family arrangement? The case of the respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the property, therefore, is self-acquired property. Equally the case of the 5th respondent is that his mother also conveyed her own interest. Therefore, it is not partible. It would be obvious that the respondents have had some arrangement; otherwise the appellant would not have had the possession of the property and management thereof. Under these circumstances, we feel that the interests of justice would be met by directing the appellant to retain 1/3rd of the property and surrender the remaining 2/3rd property to the contesting respondents who are the subsequent purchasers from the other family members. The appellant should also return 1/3rd consideration paid by the respondents to the other members in the respective sale deeds. He is further directed to demarcate and deliver 2/3rd property within two months from today.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to deliver possession of the property to the respondents without any further order of Court. No costs.
Appeal allowed accordingly.
*******
