Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.Jagannadha Rao : S.B.Majmudar
Chintaman
Versus
Shankar
Case No. : 3350 of 1998
Date of Decision : 7/17/98
{'KEYWORD': "PARTITION SUIT - EXECUTION OF DECREE - SECTION 54 CPC - COLLECTOR'S DUTY", 'SUBJECT': 'Execution of Partition Decree', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['ORDER 20 RULE 18(1) CPC', 'SECTION 54 CPC'], 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the Collector was duty-bound to execute the partition decree and put the appellant in possession of his 1/3rd share of the property as per the decree passed in 1968. The court found that the appellant was not put in possession of his share despite the decree and directed the Collector to complete the task.'}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and Respondent 1 were brothers who had undivided shares in agricultural lands. The appellant's undivided share was sold to a third party, who filed a suit for partition. The trial court passed a decree declaring the appellant's share to be 6 acres and 20 gunthas in Village Sawari. The decree directed the Collector to effect partition and put the plaintiff in possession of the 2/3rds share and the appellant in possession of the remaining 1/3rd share.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector had not put the appellant in possession of his share of the property and only the plaintiffs 2/3rds share was carved out and put in possession of the plaintiff. The court also found that the appellant's application to the executing court was a reminder to the trial court to direct the Collector to complete his work under Section 54 as per the final decree.
Issues: Whether the appellant's application to the executing court was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's application was not maintainable as an application under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, but it was a reminder to the trial court to direct the Collector to complete his work under Section 54 CPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and restored the order passed by the trial court directing the Collector to put the appellant in possession of his 1/3rd share of the property.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent 3 who is the only contesting party. In our view, this is a fit case in which this court should interfere in the interest of justice. A few relevant facts for highlighting the aforesaid conclusion of ours are required to be noted.
(3) THE appellant and Respondent l are brothers. It is not in dispute that there were agricultural lands in which the appellant and Respondent l and his another brother had l/3rd undivided share each. The undivided l/3rd shares of Respondent l as well as his brother were sold to one Chandramohini Devi. Thereafter, the present appellant as well as his brother, Respondent l along with the third brother were sued by the said purchaser in a Regular Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1954 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara. The plaintiff wanted her 2/3rds share to be separated. The remaining 1/3rd share belonged to the present appellant, the third brotheR.There were other parties joined in the suit being Defendants 4 to 10 with whom we are not concerned as ultimately in the suit, the trial court passed the decree in the following terms:
"1. It is hereby declared that the sale deed passed by Defendants l and 2 to Defendants 4 and 5 for the land Kh. No. 35 Village Sawari on 17/4/1958 and the other sale deed passed by them to Defendant 6 for Kh. No. 27/2 of the same village on 11/5/1962, are not binding on the plaintiff as these lands were already sold by Defendants l and 2 to the plaintiff on 10/12/1951.
2. It is further declared that each of Defendants 1 to 3 has 1/3rd share in the suit property described in Schedules (1, (2 and (3 annexed with the plaint.
3. From the landed property described in Schedule (1, the land Kh. No. 218/3 admeasuring 1.34 acres situated at Village Kinhi and land Kh. No. 1/6 admeasuring 17 acres situated at Village Garada, are fallow lands and they are sold by Defendants l and 2 to the plaintiff. Therefore, they are ordered to be allotted to the 2/3rds share of Defendants 1 and 2 and their possession be given to the plaintiff, as Defendants 1 and 2 have sold them to the plaintiff.
4. At Village Sawari, there are 10 pieces of lands admeasuring 13.20 acres belonging to Defendants 1 to 3. Out of these lands, only 7 acres are sold by Defendants 1 and 3 to the plaintiff. These lands are therefore allotted to the share of Defendants l and 2 and as they are sold by them to the plaintiff, the plaintiff should be given possession of these 7 acres land at the time of partition. The rest of the land admeasuring 6.20 acres from Village Sawari, is allotted to the share of Defendant 3, though his 1/3rd share comes to 4.40 acres. The surplus 1.40 acres of land from Sawari is given to him, which is cultivable, as no share is given to him in the land at Kinhi and Garada, which are fallow. This adjustment is ordered from the point of equity.
5. The house property from Schedule (2 and moveable property from Schedule (3 belong to Defendants 1 to 3 only. They do not claim partition of this property between themselves and the plaintiff has no interest in that property. Therefore, no order is passed about these two properties.
6. The partition of the landed property is to be effected by the Collector of Bhandara or his gazetted subordinates, in the light of the above things and the plaintiff be put in possession of the 2/3rds share of Defendants 1 and 2, as said above.
7. Defendants 1 and 2 shall pay the plaintiffs costs of this suit, incurred after remand of the suit from the High court.
8. All the defendants will bear their own. (sic)
9. The maps described as A, B and C, filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint, shall form part of the decree.
10. Final decree for partition of the land, as per Order XX Rule 18(1 of the Civil Procedure Code, be framed."
(4) IT is, therefore, obvious that the 2/3rds share in the suit proper
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
