Supreme Court of India
SUSHIL KUMARversusMOTI RAM AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 944
- Decided
- 26 August 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- N P SINGH
Holding
The offer to give the step‑mother half of the house is in the interest of both parties, and the court ordered the appellant to retain one half and deliver the other half to the step‑mother within three months.
Summary
The appellant's grandfather bought a house in the appellant's name but later sold it to the appellant's step‑mother. The appellant sued for a permanent injunction to prevent his father and step‑mother from interfering with his possession, but the suit and subsequent appeals were dismissed. On appeal, the appellant offered to give the step‑mother half of the house and deliver possession of that portion to achieve a peaceful settlement. The court held that such an offer was in the interest of both parties, noting that the step‑mother was not in possession while the appellant had remained in possession throughout. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, ordering the appellant to retain possession of one half and to deliver possession of the other half to the step‑mother within three months, with no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can order a partition of the house and grant possession of half to the step‑mother despite earlier dismissal of the injunction suit.
- Whether the offer made by the appellant to give half the house to the step‑mother is in the interest of both parties and can be enforced by the court.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Subjects
property disputepossessionpermanent injunctionpartitionsettlementcivil appeal
Judgment
SUSHIL KUMAR A
v.
MOTI RAM AND ANR.
AUGUST 26, 1996
(N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) B
Constitution of India, 1950: Anicle 142.
Interest of parties-Order passed by Court-Houses purchased by
appellant's grandfather in the name of appellant but later sold to appellant's C
step-mother-Suit filed by appellant for pemianent injunction restraining his
father and step-mother from interfering with his possession-Suit, first and
second appeals dismissed-Appellant in possession of house throughout-Of-
f ered half poltion of house to step-mother-Held : In the circumstances of
the case, offer made by person shall be in the interest of both palties-Hence,
order issued accordingly. D
The appellant's grandfather purchased a house in the name of the
appellant, but later sold the house to the appellant's step-mother. The
appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining his father and
step-mother (respondents) from interfering with. the possession of the
appellant. The suit as well as first and second appeals were dismissed. E
Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant was
prepared to give half portion of the house to his step-mother, Respondent
No. 2, and to deliver possession of that portion in order to have a peaceful p
settlement.
On behalf of the respondents it was suggested that the Court could
pass any appropriate order taking all the facts and circumstances into
consideration as well as the interest of the parties concerned.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court
Held : 1. The offer made on behalf of the appellant shall be in the
interest of both the parties. In view of the admitted position that the
respondent No. 2 is not in possession of the house in question and for one
reason or the other the appellant has continued in possession of the said H
211
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
· A house throughout, it would be in the interest of Respondent No. 2 also that
she is given possession of the half portion of the house as offered on behalf
of the appellant. The appellant shall remain in possession of the half
portion of the house and deliver possession of the remaining half portion
to the Respondent No. 2. [213-C-D]
B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1187 of
1987.
"From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.85 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 1894 of 1978.
c D.K. Garg for the Appellants.
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D N.P. SINGH, J. When this appeal was taken up for hearing on
August 8, 1996 the following order was passed :
"The appellant is the son of Respondent No. 1 born through
his first wife, one Smt. Chandro. In the year 1943 the mother of
the appellant died. Respondent No. 1 married Smt. Satwant Kaur
E (Respondent No. 2) in the year 1946. On April 12, 1948 the
grandfather of the appellant purchased the disputed house in the
name of the appellant. However, on May 19, 1949 the grand· father
of the appellant sold the said disputed house for a consideration
F
of Rs. 2,000 in favour of the step-mother of the appellant i.e.
Respondent No. 2. The suit in question was filed on July 2, 1974
[
on behalf of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of
the appellant. That suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge. The
appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was also dismissed. The
High Court also dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the
G appellant. It appears to be an admitted position that the appellant
has remained in possession of the house throughout. However,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an offer that the
appellant was prepared to give half portion of the house to
Respondent No. 2 and is also prepared to deliver possession of
H that portion in order to have peaceful settlement. Mr. Sodhi,
SUSHIL KR .. v. MOTI RAM [N.P. SINGH] 213
learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the A
matter be listed on some other day when he will inform in respect
of the attitude of the respondents. If the settlement is arrived at,
memo of settlement should be filed on that date."
Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on August
20, 1996 informed that he could not receive any instructions from the B
respondents in respect of the offer made on behalf of the appellant ort
August 8, 1996. But he suggested that the Court may pass any appropriate
order taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration as well as
the interest of the parties concerned. According to us, the offer made on
behalf of the appellant shall be in the interest of both the parties. In view C
of an admitted position that the respondent No. 2 is not in possession of
the house in question and for one reason or the other the appellant has
continued in possession of the said house throughout, it would be in the
interest of Respondent No. 2 also that she is given possession of the half
portion of the house as offered on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, we
allow the appeal in terms of the offer made on behalf of the appellant. The D
appellant shall remain in possession of the half portion of the house and
deliver possession of the remaining half portion to the respondent No. 2
within three months from today. The appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
E
v.s.s. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "property dispute"Sign in to search