LexK. ADIVI NAIDU AND ORS. versus E. DURUVASULU NAIDU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
K. ADIVI NAIDU AND ORS.
v.
E. DURUVASULU NAIDU AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Hindu Law-Joint family prope1ty-{Jndivided share in-Purchase from
alienee of Karta prior to institution of partition suit-Preliminary decree al-
lowed to become final-Held alienees of an alienee have no right to equi-
C
~o-parcener has no right to sell undivided share-Though purchasers have
no equity yet as a special case held entitled to respective share to which
principal alienor was entitled to.
In a partition suit the Trial Court passed a decree directing that
schedule properties be divided by metes and bonds into two equal shares -
D half to the plaintiff and the other half to the first defendant - taking the
good and bad qualities thereon. A single judge of the High Court confirmed
the decree but the Division Bench set it aside and remitted the case to the
trial court for passing the final decree. In appeal to this court it was
contended for the appellants that since the alienation was made prior to
E
institution of the partition suit and the appellants are purchasers from the
alienee of the karta of joint family, they cannot be deprived of the specific
properties sold to them.
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court
F
HELD : Since the preliminary decree was allowed to become final,
the trial Court need to give effect to it. It is settled law the alienees of the
alienees have no right to equities. Equally a coparcener has no right to sell
his undivided share in the joint family property and any such sale does
not bind the co-parceners. Since the specific properties were purchased
G prior to the institution of the suit for partition, though appellants have no
right to equities, it could be said that the respective share to which their
principal alien or was entitled would be allottable to them as a special case.
As the preliminary decree specifically directed that the good and bad
qualities of the land should be taken into consideration in effecting the
partition, it should, in letter and spirit, be given effect to. Thus, while
H passing final decree, if the lands purchased by the appellants are found
524
KA NAIDU v. E. DURUVASULU NAIDU
525
more valuable than the lands to be allotted to the respondents, the respec-
A
live values thereof should be ascertained and the respondents need to be
compensated in monetary value. The Trial Court would pass the final
decree accordingly. [526-D-G]
1995
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8416 of
B
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.94 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in L.P.A. No. 261 of 1991.
K. Madhava Reddy, G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.
c
C. Sitaramiah and Ms. Vrindra Dhar, for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
It is not necessary to dilate all the details of the chequered history D
of the litigation. Suffice it to state that in O.S. No. 2/75 the Trial Court
passed a preliminary decree on April 24, 1982 thus :
"(1) that the Plaint item 1 of 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties
be divided by metes and bounds into two equal shares taking the E
good and bad qualities thereon.
(2) that one such share be delivered to the plaintiff and the
remaining half share be delivered to the 1st defendant ; ...... ".
In the application for passing the final decree, there was a controver-
sy which resulted in LPA No. 2651/91. By judgment and decree dated
August 24, 1994, the Division Bench directed thus :
F
"This, in our view, is not the correct position in law. We are,
therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 16th August, 1991 in A.S. No. 2391 of 1990 G
confirming the order of the trial Court dated 4th June, 1990 in I.A.
No. 626 of 1983 in O.S. No. 2 of 1975 and remit the case to the
trial Court to pass final decree keeping in view the observations
made above.
It is needless to mention that as the matter is pending final H
A
B
c
D
E
F
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
determination for qµite some time, the trial Court should dispose
of the same without any avoidable delay~"
Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, contended that since the alienation was made prior to institu-
tion of the suit and the appellants being the purchasers from the alienee
of the karta of the joint family, they cannot be deprived of the specific
properties soExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.