Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KRISHNA PILLAI(DIED) & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 247 1996 SCALE (3)480
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2