Supreme Court of India
MOSES WILSON AND ORS. versus KASTURIBA AND ORS. on 20 September 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
MOSES WILSON AND ORS.
A
V. KASTURIBA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
B [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
Administration of Justice:
c
Disposal of old matters-Suit for recovery of money filed in 1947-0rder for attachment before judgment challenged-Case involving complicated issues stretching over 60 years-Held: With consent of parties the entire property which is the subject matter nf litigation is directed to be divided by the District Judge concerned in D [equal shares between the two parties. ]
Administration of Justice:
Curing the delay in disposal of cases in courts-Need for emphasized-Authorities concerned suggested to do the needful in the E [matter urgently. ]
Rajindra Singh (D) through LRs. and Ors. v. Prem Mai and Ors., [2007] 9 SCR 300, relied on and reiterated.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1062- F [1065of2007. ]
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.1998 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. Nos. 3679 to 3682of1987.
Dr. A. Francis Julian, Swnit Kumar and Amit Kumar Mishra (for G Arputham, Aruna & Co.) for the Appellants.
K. Ramamoorthy, V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
-1
""'
't-
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
A
We are disposing of all the four appeals by a common order.
These appeals arise out of a suit filed in 194 7 and subsequent Proceedings. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- and there was an order for attachment before judgment of the dry fish of the defendant. A B third party claimed ownership of the dry fish and he applied for release. of the attachment order. It is not necessary to give further details of the case because the facts involved are very complicated stretching over 60 years. Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties we cut short the matter and direct that the entire property which is the subject c matter of this litigation may be divided in equal shares between the two parties. Half share should be given to the appellants and the other half should be given to the respondents.
To decide which part should go to the appellants and which part should go to the respondents, as many properties are involved, it is just D and proper that this exercise may be done by the District Judge, ,.. Kanyakumari at Nagercoil himself or by the Additional District Judge nominated by the District Judge. The District Judge may issue notices to both parties and divide the properties in two equal shares. If any person has any grievance against the order passed by the District Judge (or E A.DJ., as the case may be), it will be open for either of the parties to approach this Court for further clarification. The District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil (or A.DJ. nominated by him) is directed to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six months.
F
Let all the records which are available here be transmitted to the District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Before parting with this case, we again express our deep concern G at the delay in disposing of cases in our Courts. Recently in Civil Appeal No. 1307 of2001 titled Rajindra Singh (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. v. Prem Mai & Ors. decided on 23rd August, 2007 we had expressed our deep anguish about this situation, and had observed that because of delay in disposal of cases people in this country are fast losing faith in the judiciary. H
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
A We saw in the media news oflynching of suspected thieves in Bihar's V aishali District, the gunning down of an undertrial prisoner outside Patna City Civil Court, and other incidents where people have taken the law into their own hands. This is obviously because many people have started thinking that justice will not be done in the Courts due to the delays in B Court proceedings. This is indeed an alarming state of affairs, and we once again request the concerned authorities to do the needful in the matter urgently before the situation goes totally out of control.
Appeals disposed of.
RP.