GIAN CHAND KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS. versus RABINDRA MOHAN KAPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 03-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GIAN CHAND KAPUR (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
RABINDRA MOHAN KAPUR & ORS. 
DECEMBER 3, 1986 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Partition Act, 1893 - Suit.for partition of house-Family settlement on 
the basis of an award grounded upon compromise-No share given to plaintiff 
in suit-Plaintiff not entitled to share in property . 
. C 
Chander Mohan made a gift of the hom1e in dispute in favour of Gyan 
Chand, but later on he filed a suit for cancellation of the gift. The suit was -i- ·
referred to the arbitrator who made his award, which was accepted by the Court 
and a decree followed. Under the decree Chander Mohan got a right of 
enjoyment during his life time. Gyan Chand anCI the sons of Mohinder Mohan, 
D 
another brother of Chander Mohan, together got one-third share each. The 
remaining one-third share went to the daughter of Chander Mohan with life 
interest and after her, absolutely to her son. 
Later the three sons ofMahinder Mohan filed a suit asking for exclusive 
possession of their one-third share in the disputed house. Finally, the High 
E · Court held that they were not entitled to a share in the property. 
F 
G 
The widow and son of Chander Mohan filed a suit claiming two-third 
shares in the property and for partitioning thereof. The trial Court dismissed 
the suit holding that the award was void and the 1~ft operated and since under it, 
no share was given to them, they had no right to sue for partition. However, in 
appeal, the High Court found that they had onMhird share and decreed their 
claim to that extent. 
Allowing the appeal of Gyan Chand Ka1•oor (Defendant no. 1), 
• 
HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had a 
share in the property. In the very first litigation it'elfthe decree was in the nature 
of a family settlement on the basis of an award grounded upon compromise. 
There was no justification to hold that the gift which constituted the title in 
respect of the subject matter of the house, were separate from one another; 
equally fallacious was the view of the trial Court that notwithstanding the 
compromise, the award and the decree, the gift still remained valid as it has not 
H · been set aside. [ 400E -
F] 
398 
G.C. KAPUR (DEAD) BY L.R.S. v. R.M. KAPUR 
399 
2. Admittedly, under the gift or in.the compromise and the award no 
share had been given to the present plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the 
plaintiffs could not claiDJ any share in the property. [400G] 
3. Rama Devi, widow of Chander Mohan, is allowed to live during her 
life time in the house in dispute without title to the property. [40IB - CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 558 of 1973 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.5.1972 of the Delhi High Court in 
-
.~ RF.A. No. 36-D of 1962. 
/ 
~. 
; 
A.B. Rohtagi and B.P. Maheshwari for the Appellant. 
O.P. Verma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
/ 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate is by defendant 
No. l and is directed against the reversing decree of the High Court in a suit for 
partition of a house and other related reliefs. The trial Court had dismissed the 
suit but the High Court has found that the plaintiffs were entitled to one-third 
share as against ·two-thirds claimed by them and bas given a decree for it. 
Defendant No. l who maintains that the plaintiffs have no interest in the suit 
house has challenged the appellate decree. 
Admittedly the house in dispute belonged to Chander Mohan. On 
29.6.193.7 he made a gift of it in favour of Gian Chand, son of his brother but on 
8.12.1937 filed a suit for canoellation of the gift. That suit was referred to the 
arbitration of the plaintiffs Advocate by an application dated 31.5.1938 and the 
Arbitrator made his award on 20.6.1938 on the basis of a compromise between 
the parties which he treated as a family settlement. The award was acoepted by 
the Court on the same day and a decree followed. 
Under the decree, Chander Mohan 5ot a right of enjoyment during his 
life-time. Gian Chand (Defendant No. l) an<J the sons of Mohinder Mohan, 
another brother of Chander Mohan together got one-third share·each. The 
remaining one-third share went to Tarawati, daughter of the donor from the 
deoeased wife with life interest and after her, absolutely to her son. 
A-second round of litigation in respect of the porperty started with the 
suit in June 1953 by the three sbns of Mohinder Mohan asking for exclusive 
possession of their one-third sha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.