Supreme Court of India
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR versus KRISHNA PILLAI (DEAD) AND ORS. on 22 March 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR
A
v. KRISHNA PILLAI (DEAD) AND ORS.
MARCH 22, 1996
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Hindu Law:
Hindu u11divided famil:,-Appe//ant, one of the members of the family C in possession of certain properties 011 the basis of alleged family arrange-me11t~laim for paltition a11d a//otme11t of share i11 tenns of the arrange-me11t-Other members disputi11g ,the family arra11geme11t a11d claimi11g the property as self-acquired by their father-Held, there appears to have been some arra11gement-Appe//ant W retai11 ]/3rd of the property and surre11der the remaini11g 2/3rd property to the contesting respo11de11ts who are. the D subsequent purchasers from the other family members.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.83 of the Madras High E Court in A.S. No. 212 of 1983.
S. Sivasubramaniam and R.A. Perumal for the Appellants.
Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents.
F The following Order of the Court was delivered :
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. G By order dated July 27, 1992 in CA. No. 2718/92 this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether there was any family arran-gement. 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.
H The only question raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior 810
~
counsel for the appellant is : whether among the members of the family, A there was th~ arrangement under ~hich 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 t~e respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the property, there-fore, 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. B It would be obvious that the respon~ents have had some arrangement; · otherwise the appellant would not have had the poss,ssion of the property and management thereof. Under these circumstances, . we feel that the interests of justice ~ould be ·met by directing the appellant to retain l/3rd of the.property and surrender the remaining 2/3rd property, to the contest-C ing respondents ,who are the subsequent purchasers ·from·the other family members . .The appellant should a\so return l/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 within two months from !<;>day. D
C
D
•· '· . . . ' . • ···'I' The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed to d~liver possessio~ of'the property to the respondents without any further order of ·,, Court. No costs. \l . ' ~ , ·,• R.P. Appeai allowed. , '
l . .r ' ~ • I . ' ,,, . ,, ·' ·; ,_ ' J ,. A ~ -~ •• 1 " . . . ·-. --" ' ' '