Kumar Vs. Moti Ram & Anr  INSC 1022 (26 August 1996)
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Faizan Uddin (J) N.P.Singh.J
JT 1996 (7) 470 1996 SCALE (6)188
J U D G
M E N T
this appeal was taken up for hearing on August 8, 1996 the following order was passed:
appellant is the son of Respondent No.1 born through his first wife, one Smt. Chandro.
In the year 1943 the mother of the appellant died. Respondent No.1 married Smt.
Satan Kaur (Respondent No.2) in the year 1946, On April 12, 1948 the grandfather of the appellant purchased the disputed
house in the name of the appellant.
on May 19, 1949 the grand- father of the appellant sold the said disputed house
for a consideration of Rs.2,000/- in favour of the step-mother of the appellant
i.e. Respondent No.2. The suit in question was filed on July 2, 1974 on behalf of the appellant for
permanent injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from interfering
with the possession of the appellant. That suit was dismissed by the Civil
Judge. The appeal filed on behalf o. the appellant was also dismissed. The High
Court also dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. It
appears to be an admitted position that the appellant has remained in possession
of the house throughout.
learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an offer that the appellant
was prepared to give half portion of the house to Respondent No.2 and is also
prepared to deliver possession of that portion in order to have peaceful
settlement. Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated
that the matter be listed on some other day when he will inform in respect of
the attitude of the respondents. If the settlement is arrived at, memo of
settlement should be filed on that date." Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents on August 20, 1996 informed that he could not receive any instructions from
the respondents in respect of the offer made on behalf of the appellant on August 8, 1996.
suggested that the Court may pass any appropriate order taking all the facts
and circumstances into consideration as well as the interest of the parties
concerned. According to us, the offer made on behalf of the appellant shall be
in the interest of both the parties. In view of an admitted position that the
respondent No.2 is not in possession of the house in question and for one
reason or the other the appellant has continued in possession of the aid house
throughout, it would be in the interest of Respondent No.2 also that she is
given possession of the half portion of the house as offered on behalf of the
appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in terms of the offer made on
behalf of the appellant. The appellant shall remain in possession of the half portion
of the house and deliver possession of the remaining half portion to the
Respondent No.2 within three months from today. is allowed to the extent
indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.