Nair Vs. Krishna Pillai & Ors  INSC 442 (22 March 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (4) 247 1996 SCALE (3)480
O R D
have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.
by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of
Madras in A.S. No. 212/83.
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
High Court has held that there is no family arrangement.
the appellant is not entitled to the partition of the property and allotment of
his share in terms thereof.
this appeal by special leave .
only question raised by Mr. S.Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel for the
appellant is: whether among 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
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 l/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 in two months from
appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to deliver
possession of property to the respondents without any further order of Court.