K. Adivi
Naidu & Ors Vs. E. Duruvasulu Naidu & Ors [1995] INSC 479 (11 September
1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 150 JT 1995 (9) 593 1995 SCALE (5)455
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
It is
not necessary to dilate all the details of the chequered history of the
litigation. Suffice it to state that in O.S. No.2/75 the Trial Court passed a
preliminary decree on April
24, 1982 thus:
"(1)
that the Plaint item 1 of `B', `C' and `D' schedule properties be divided by
metes and bounds into two equal shares taking the good and bad qualities
thereon.
(2) that
one such share be delivered to the plaintiff and the remaining half share be
delivered to the Ist defendant; ....".
In the
application for passing the final decree, there was a controversy which
resulted in LPA No.2651/91. By judgment and decree dated August 24, 1994, the Division Bench directed thus:
"This,
in our view, is not the correct position in law.
We
are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 16th August, 1991 in A.S. No.2391 of 1990 confirming the order of
the trial Court dated 4th June, 1990 in I.A. No.626 of 1983 in O.S. No.2 of
1975 and remit the case to the trial Court to pass final decree keeping in view
the observations made above.
It is
needless to mention that as the matter is pending final determination for quite
some time, the trial Court should dispose of the same without any avoidable
delay." Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the leaned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, contended that since the alienation was made prior to institution
of the suit and the appellants being the purchasers from the alienee of the Karta
of the joint family, they cannot be deprived of the specific properties sold to
them under the sales made in the year 1972. Shri C. Sitaramiah, learned senior
counsel for the respondents, in particular for the son of the principal alienor,
submitted that since the appellants are only alinees of the alienees they have
no right to seek equities.
As the
preliminary decree directed to work out the rights of the parties taking into
account the good and bad qualities of the lands in effecting partition, in
passing final decree, the respondents are entitled to the equities. The High
Court was, therefore, right in giving the direction in the impugned order.
Having
considered the respective contentions, we are of the view that since the
preliminary decree was allowed to become final, the trial Court need to give
effect to it. It is settled law that alienees of the alinees have no right to
equities. Equally, it is settled law that a coparcener has no right to sell his
undivided share in the joint family property and any sale of undivided and
specified items does not bind the other co-parceners. Since the specific
properties were purchased prior to the institution of the suit for partition,
though the appellants have no right to equities, it could be said that the
respective share to which their principal alienor was entitled would be allotable
to them as a special case. However, since the preliminary decree specifically
directed that the good and bad qualities of the land should be taken into
consideration in effecting the partition, it should, in letter and spirit, be
given effect to. While passing final decree, if the lands purchased by the
appellants are found more valuable than the lands to be allotted to the
respondents, the respective values thereof should be ascertained and the
respondents need to be compensated in monetary value. That would be the effect
of the preliminary decree as well. Considered from this perspective, the
direction issued by the Division Bench would be modified as above, and the
trial Court would pass the final decree accordingly.
The
appeal is allowed in part as above. Parties are directed to bear their own
costs.
Back