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

2016 Supreme(All) 1359

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL AND RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
AMAR NATH KAPOOR AND OTHERS ....Appellants
Versus
KRISHNA GOPAL KAPOOR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(First Appeal Nos. 629 of 2005 and 177 of 2006, decided on 25th May, 2016)

Advocates:
Counsel :
S.D. Singh, A.K. Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, R.S. Prasad, Ravi Kant and R.R. Mansingh for the Appellants; B.D. Shukla, Atul Kumar Srivastava, K.M. Asthana, Radhey Shyam, Rajesh Trivedi for the Respondents.
.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 96—Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 2(b)—Registration Act, 1908—Sections 17(1)(b) and 49—Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 91—Specific Performance —Resumption of share—Appellants directed to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of their half share in House property in question—Right of resumption—Case of appellants that since fourth instalment was not paid in time alongwith interest as directed by Mediator respondents were not entitled to file suit for specific performance against appellants and on the contrary, appellants are entitled for resumption of premises, vacant possession whereof was handed over to respondents—Whenever there is a partition, presumption is that it was a complete one both as to parties and property—Terms of settlement have substantially been observed and acted upon between parties and issue is only with regard to non-payment of last and fourth installment which is almost 1/4th of total consideration payable by defendants—Court below has not erred in law by directing appellants to execute sale-deed after receiving remaining amount alongwith due simple interest—Under Section 49 of 1908 Act, even an unregistered document was admissible for collateral purpose particularly when both sides relied on said document in support of their case—15% interest in respect of unpaid amount of fourth installment is to be computed on compound basis and has to be paid by respondents in order to get sale-deed executed by appellants—Same rate of interest will continue till amount is actually paid and on payment of such amount, appellants shall execute sale-deed as directed by Court below—Impugned judgment dated 30.5.2005 is partly modified in respect of interest and in respect of rest part of judgment and decree shall remain as it is—Direction issued. [Paras 33 to 101]

       Result; Order Accordingly.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Both these appeals are connected involving common questions of facts and law and therefore have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. First Appeal No. 629 of 2005 was filed before this Court under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to referred as “CPC”) and First Appeal No. 177 of 2006 has been registered after its transfer from the Court of VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar pursuant to this Court’s order dated 21.11.2005.

3. First Appeal No. 629 of 2005 (hereinafter to referred as “Appeal-II”) is a plaintiff’s appeal arisen from the same judgment dated 30th of May, 2005 and decree dated 5.7.2005 passed by Sri B.P. Saxena, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - IV/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 1300 of 1994 (hereinafter to referred as “Suit-2”) whereby suit has been dismissed.

4. First Appeal No. 177 of 2006 (hereinafter to referred as “Appeal-I”) has also arisen from the same judgment dated 30th of May, 2005 and decree dated 5.7.2005 passed by the same Judge namely Sri B.P. Saxena, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - IV/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 714 of 1994 (hereinafter to referred as “Suit-1”) decreeing aforesaid suit and directing defendant appellants to execute sale-deed of their share in favour of plaintiff-respondents in terms of award dated 27.5.1979 after receiving remaining consideration as stated in the award, alongwith ten per cent interest from the date of award, till execution of sale-deed. This is, therefore, defendant’s appeal.

5. Plaintiffs and defendants belong to a family of common ancestor, late Chhutkan Lal Kapoor, who had two sons namely late Sidha Gopal Kapoor and Manoo Lal Kapoor. Amar Nath Kapoor is son of late Manoo Lal Kapoor and Krishna Gopal Kapoor is son of Sidha Gopal Kapoor. To understand the relationship, family tree is given as under:

Chhutkan Lal Kapoor

Siddha Gopal

Mannu Lal Kapoor

(Smt. Shyamo Bibi-wife)

Krishna Gopal Kappor

(Smt. Usha Rani - wife)

Amar Nath Kapoor

(Smt. Indrani Kapoor-wife)

Praveen Kapoor

Naveen Kapoor

Sharad Kapoor

Om Nath Kapoor

Suit - 1

6. Krishna Gopal Kapoor, his wife Smt. Usha Rani Kapoor and three sons, Navin Kapoor, Sharad Kapoor and Praveen Kapoor instituted Suit-1 in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Kanpur impleading Shri Amar Nath Kapoor, his mother Smt. Shyamo Bibi, wife Smt. Indrani Kapoor and son Om Nath Kapoor as defendants. Suit was instituted for specific performance directing defendants to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect to their half share in House No. 7/24, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur, boundaries whereof were mentioned at the bottom of plaint dated 22nd April, 1983.

7. The plaint case set up is that defendants constitute Hindu Undivided Family (hereinafterto referred as “HUF”) of which defendant -1, Amar Nath Kapoor was Karta and manager. The defendants alongwith Sri Sidha Gopal Kapoor purchased House No. 7/24, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur from one Rai Sahab Lala Dhanpal Chandra, son of Lala Karorimal (Rtd. Principal from Government Technical Institute, Lucknow) who, then, was residing at Sita Niwas, Char Bagh, Lucknow, through sale-deed dated 14th of August, 1946, registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 26th of August, 1946. For the aforesaid purchase, requisite funds were made available from HUF funds.

8. Since the date of purchase, defendants and Sri Siddha Gopal Kapoor and his family members are and were in joint possession and ownership of the said property. Defendants being in need of money for expansion of their business, decided to sell their undivided half share in the disputed property, hence, entered into a “contract for sale” dated 7.2.1979





































































































































































































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 Back to top