Holding

The Supreme Court held that, in view of the long‑standing family dispute, the defendant should pay Rs.5,50,000 to the plaintiff as a settlement in lieu of partition, with the plaintiff given time to construct a new house and vacate his share of the building.

Summary

The case involved two brothers who jointly owned a plot of land on which a building was constructed. The plaintiff claimed an equal share in the building, while the defendant asserted that he had borne the entire construction cost, amounting to Rs.55,000, and that the plaintiff was only entitled to that amount. The trial court ordered an equal partition, but the Kerala High Court set aside that decree, holding that the plaintiff could only claim the Rs.55,000 spent by the defendant. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted the protracted 20‑year litigation and, to preserve family harmony, accepted the defendant's offer to pay Rs.5,50,000 to the plaintiff in lieu of partition. The Court directed the payment within four months and allowed the plaintiff one year to vacate his portion of the building and construct a new house on his land, with costs borne by each party.

Issues considered

Whether the jointly owned plot and the building constructed thereon are to be treated as joint property.
Whether the plaintiff contributed equally to the construction cost.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the building.
Quantum of mesne profits, if any, payable by the defendant.
Whether equitable relief in the form of payment in lieu of partition is appropriate.
Determination of costs and final reliefs.

Subjects

partitionjoint ownershipbuildingmesne profitsequitable relieffamily disputesettlementpayment in lieupossession

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 100

A VINO DAN ...
v.
VISHWANATHAN
Civil Appeal No. 881 of 2001
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Suit - For partition of building - Constructed on the. part
~
of plot jointly owned by parties - Trial court directing equal
partition - High Court holding that plaintiff not entitled to parti-
c tion and could claim only the amount spent on construction -
On appeal, defendant agreeing to pay Rs. 5,50,0001- in lieu of
plaintiff's share - Held: Direction for payment of the amount
as agreed by defendant to the plaintiff for balancing equities
and keeping happiness and peace between the litigating broth-
D ers.

The present appeal relates to a dispute between two
brothers regarding partition of a building constructed on
a part of plot of which they were joint owners. Claim of
E respondent was that he had spent the entire cost of con-
struction, while the appellant contended that he had
equally contributed for the construction.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
F HELD: The parties have been .litigating for more than
20 years and because of the bitter and long litigation, it
may not be conducive for the parties to stay in the same
building, particularly when they have option of residing
separately because of the available land with each one of
G them. The respondent gave an offer that he is willing to
pay Rs.5,50,0001- in lieu of the share of the appellant. In ' .,
the facts and circumstances of the case, while balancing
the equities and for keeping peace and happiness in the

H 100
VINODAN V. VISHWANATHAN 101

family, it would be just and proper to direct the respon- A
dent to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant. On receiving
the said amount, the appellant may construct a suitable
house in his portion of the land and for that purpose one
year's time from the date of payment of Rs.5,50,000/- is
granted to the appellant to vacate the portion of the build- B
ing which is presently in his possession and give yacant
and peaceful possession of his portion of building to the
respondent in lieu of payment of Rs.5,50,000/-. [Paras 11
and 12] [104-D, E, F, G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.881 C
of 2001 c..

From the Judgement and Order dated 21.05.1998 of the
High Court of Ke.rala at Ernakulam in A.S. No. 254of1990
._.
Subramonium Prasad for the Appellant. D
...:,.~'',
A. R~ghunath for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
·.-.
DALVEER BHANDAR1, J. E
1. This appeal is directedagainst the judgment dated 21st
May, 1. 998 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
A.S. No.254 of 1990.

2. This is an unfortunate litigation regarding partition of a F -
building constructed on a small piece of land between the broth-
ers. It is not disputed that the land is jointly owned by both the
brothers. The dispute is restricted over the building which has
been constructed on the part of the land. The matter has trav-
eiled from the Subordinate Court, Trichur to this Court.
G
3. A serious endeavour has been made by this Court to .
amicably settle the matter. On 6.8.2008, the following order was
passed by this Court"

"In the present case, the dispute is between two brothers. H
·< ~
102 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [2Q09] 2 S.C.R. l--

A The ownership of the lanq is admittedly joint. The short
controversy is regarding the cost of construction over that
plot The case of the respondent is ..that h-e has spent the \>

entire cost of construction whereas _the case of the
appellant is that he has also contributed equally to the
B cost of construction.

In our considered view, this controversy can be easily
sorted out by the parties. We have requested the learned
counsel for. the parties to ensure that the matter may be
amicably settled between the parties and for that purpose,- of:
c we adjourn this matter for four weeks."

The dispu.te could not be re.solved despite efforts of this
court and now we have been called upon to give our judgment
in the matter.
D
4. Vinodan and Vishwanathan in the suit were the plaintiff
and defendant before the trial court. The suit was filed before
·the trial court with the prayer that the property described in the
plaint schedule was purchased jointly by the parties as per the
E -document no. 806/77 and the appellant before this court Vinodan
r-
r
;-
is.entitled to the half share of the property. The trial court framed ~

t,he following issues:
"(1) Whether the plaint schedule property was acquired ,
· by the plaintiff and defendant jointly or whether it was ;.
F

(2)
acquired by the defendant exclusively?

Whether the house was constructed by both the
parties or by· any of them exclusively?
f
••
~
G
(3)
(4)
Whether plaintiff is entitled to claim partition?
What is the quantum of mesne profits, if to be paid? ,,;

.,
t ~ I

(5) Equities and reservations?
t
(6) Reliefs and Costs?" ~
I.
H '"
<

~
i.-
VINODAN V. 103
VISHWANATHAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

The trial court after examining the evidence and hearing A
•I
the parties came to the following finding on Issues no.1 &2:
"I have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff and
defendant had supplied funds for the construction of the
house and the house had been constructed with that amount
8
and so the house belonged to them jointly. Similarly the
property had also been purchased with the funds of both
and so it also belongs to them jointly."
-~-

5. Regarding Issue no. 3, the trial court came to the finding
that it had to be divided into two equal shares and one such c
share was allotted to the plaintiff/appellant herein and the other
share was allotted to the defendant/respondent herein.
6. Regarding Issue no.4 pertaining to mesne profits, the
trial court held that the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to get
mesne profits from the defendant/respondent from the date of D
--1
suit till possession. The trial court further held that the quantum
~I of mesne profits can be a matter which could be decided in the

• final decree proceedings after the Commissioner would sub-
mit his report.
7. The trial court directed that the property described in
E

the plaint schedule has to be divided into two equal shares and

- ~
one such share was allotted to the plaintiff/appellant and the
other to the defendant/respondent.

8. The defendant/respondent Vishwanathan aggrieved by F
the said order of the Subordinate Court, Trichur filed an appeal
before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The finding of
the High Court is that the plaintiff/appellant had been regularly
sending money for th~ construction of the building during the
period 1977-78. Exhs. 8-36 and 8-37 go to show that the ap- G
pellant had sent Rs.55,000/- during the period 1976-77 for the
construction of the building.
9. On a close scrutiny of all the documents available on
record and the oral evidence, the High Court came to the con-
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A clusion that on construction of the building the appellant had
spent Rs.55,000/- and the balance amount had been spen~ by
the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside
the order and the,preliminary decree passed by the trial court.
In the impugned judgment, the High Court directed that the plain-
B tiff/appellant was not entitled to divide the house and could only
claim Rs.55,000/- from the appellant which will be a charge on
the property of the appellant.

10. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the +·
High Court, preferred this appeal before this court.
c
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The parties have been litigating for more than 20 years and
because of the bitter and long litigation it may not be conducive
for the parties to stay in the same building, particularly when
D they have option of residing separately because of the avail-
able land with each one of them. During the course of hearing, ,.._

the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent gave #

an offer that his client is willing to pay Rs.5,50,000/- in lieu of the
share of the appellant. No offer was given by the appellant de- Jll
E spite opportunity granted by this court.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, while bal-
ancing the equities and for keeping peace and happiness in
the family, we think it would be just and proper to direct the re- />-
'
spondent to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant within a period
F of four months. On receiving the said amount, the appellant may
construct a suitable house in his portion of the land and for that
purpose we grant one year's time from the date of payment of
Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant to vacate the portion of the build-
ing which is presently in· his possession and give vacant and
G peaceful possession of his portion of building to the respon-
y
dent in lieu of payment of Rs.5,50,000/-.
We are granting long time to the appellant to vacate the
portion of the building in his possession to avoid any inconve-
nience to the appellant. In case the appellant after one year of
H
VINODAN V. 105
VISHWANATHAN [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

receiving the entire amount of Rs.5,50,000/- does not vacate A
the portion of the building in his possession, in that event, the
Subordinate Court is directed to ensure that the possession is
taken from the appellant and handed over to the respondent.
Perhaps this solution may lead to ultimate peace between the
families of two brothers. B
13. With these observations, this appeal is accordingly
disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.