Supreme Court of India
MOSES WILSON AND ORS. versus KASTURIBA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 20 September 2007
- Judges listed
- A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2007] 10 S.C.R. 146 · 2007 INSC 956
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A We are disposing of all the four appeals by a common order.
p. 147
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.
p. 147
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.
p. 147
Let all the records which are available here be transmitted to the District Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil.
p. 147
The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
p. 147
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 We saw in the media news oflynching of suspected V aishali District, the gunning down of an undertrial City Civil Court, and other incidents where people into their own hands. This is obviously because many
pp. 147–148
thinking that justice will not be done in the Courts Court proceedings. This is indeed an alarming state once again request the concerned authorities to matter urgently before the situation goes totally out RP.
p. 148, margin A