Supreme Court of India
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR versus KRISHNA PILLAI (DEAD) AND ORS.
- Decided
- 22 March 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 3 S.C.R. 810 · 1996 INSC 428
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 the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.
p. 810, margin F
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. 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 arrangement. 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.
p. 810, margin F
The only question raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel for the appellant is : whether among the members of the family, 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, therefore, 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. 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 contesting 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.
pp. 810–811, margin H
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. ' ~ , R.P. Appeai allowed.
p. 811, margin D
, ' I ,,, ,,
p. 811, margin D
. ' ·'
p. 811, margin D
-~ ' " ·- -- ' '
p. 811, margin D