Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Supreme Court Judgments

Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2021


RSS Feed img

K. Jayadevan Nair Vs. Krishna Pillai & Ors [1996] INSC 442 (22 March 1996)

Ramaswamy, K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)

CITATION: JT 1996 (4) 247 1996 SCALE (3)480




We have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 212/83.

It has 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 arrangement.

The High Court has held that there is no family arrangement.

Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the partition of the property and allotment of his share in terms thereof.

Thus this appeal by special leave .

The 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 property.

Equally 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 today.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to deliver possession of property to the respondents without any further order of Court. No costs.



Pages: 1 2 

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys