Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.4492 of 2008)
... APPELLANT(S)
PARVATHAMMA & ORS.
| ... RE | |
|---|---|
| VENKATSIVAMMA & ORS.<br>J U D G M E N T<br>ANIL R. DAVE, J.<br>1. Leave granted.<br>2. Heard the learned counsel for the<br>3. Upon perusal of the impugned jud<br>judgment delivered by the trial cour |
High Court ought not to have interfered with the findings
JUDGMENT
arrived at by the trial court, especially in view of the
fact that the partition of the property, among the family
th
members, had taken place on 20 June, 1990, whereas the
suit for partition had been filed by the
Respondentdaughters in the year 1993.
4. There is no finding to the effect that at the time of
partition, the parties did not agree or there was any
coercion. In absence of such a factor, especially when
1
Page 1
the partition had taken place at free will of the father
of present respondents, we do not see any reason for the
High Court to interfere with the order passed by the trial
court. Very often, for some special reasons, not recorded
in the partition deed, the properties may not be divided
equally. Partition of family property, being a subject
involving the family, the family members may agree to
unequal partition for some just reasons.
5. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and dismiss
the suit.
6. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as
to costs. Judgment delivered by the trial court is
restored. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
..............J.
[ANIL R. DAVE]
JUDGMENT
.................J.
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]
New Delhi;
th
9 February, 2016.
2
Page 2