SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 375

S.B.SINHA, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
SUBHASH MAHADEVASA HABIB – Appellant
Versus
NEMASA AMBASA DHARMADAS (D)BY LRS – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 operated as res judicata against certain defendants regarding the sale of the equity of redemption in Habib’s favor (!) . - The decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1972 held the properties were joint family properties, but this finding was not final or conclusive for Habib’s rights; the court treated it as not binding to alter Habib’s prior rights established in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court ultimately held that Habib was entitled to redeem the entire properties, and that defendant No.6 had no valid rights to the properties due to prior assignments and final decrees; it issued composite final decrees for redemption in favor of Habib (!) .

What is the effect of the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 on the rights of defendants 2, 2(a), 3 and 4 and their assignees concerning the sale of the equity of redemption?

What is the finality and binding effect of the decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1972 on the questions of joint family vs separate property and its impact on Habib's rights?

What is the scope of res judicata or its applicability to the rights of defendant No.6 (assignee) in light of the decrees in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 and O.S. No. 4 of 1972?


JUDGMENT

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4274-4275 of 2003)

With C.A. No. 1450 /2007 [@ S.L.P. (C) No. 4352 of 2003]

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

Leave granted.

1. The first of the Civil Appeals challenges the decree of the High Court of Karnakata in R.S.A. Nos. 472 and 435 of 1998, both arising out of O.S. No. 67 of 1975. The second challenges the decree in R.S.A. No. 865 of 2000, arising out of O.S. No. 800 of 1992. Both the suits were for redemption and the decrees passed therein are questioned in these appeals by the common plaintiff in them.

2.Three items of properties situated in Hubli City in the State of Karnataka are the subject matters of these two suits. Whereas in the first suit O.S. No. 67 of 1975, we are concerned with C.T.S. No. 1015/A/20 having an extent of 29.38 square yards, in O.S. No. 800 of 1992 we are concerned with C.T.S. No. 1015/A/19 having an extent of 14.7 square yards and 1028/2A having an extent of 75 square yards. As seen recited in a deed of partition dated 14.2.1961 entered into by three brothers belonging to a Hindu Mitakshara Family, the said items along with other items belonged to their joint family. But there is considerable dispute about the antecedents
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top