A
K. JAYADEVAN NAIR
v.
KRISHNA PILLAI (DEAD) AND ORS.
MARCH 22, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Hindu Law:
Hindu u11divided famil:,-Appe//ant, one of the members of the family
C in possession of certain properties 011 the basis of alleged family arrange-
me11t~laim for paltition a11d a//otme11t of share i11 tenns of the arrange-
me11t-Other members disputi11g ,the family arra11geme11t a11d claimi11g the
property as self-acquired by their father-Held, there appears to have been
some arra11gement-Appe//ant W retai11 ]/3rd of the property and surre11der
the remaini11g 2/3rd property to the contesting respo11de11ts who are. the
D subsequent purchasers from the other family members.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6733 of
1996.
j
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.83 of the Madras High
~
E Court in A.S. No. 212 of 1983.
S. Sivasubramaniam and R.A. Perumal for the Appellants.
Ms. Malini Poduval for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
We have heard the counsel on both sides. Leave granted.
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.
G 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 arran-
gement. 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.
H
The only question raised by Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior
810
IU. NAIR v. K. PILLAI
811
counsel for the appellant is : whether among the members of the family, A
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, there-
fore, 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. B
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 contest-
C
ing 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.
D
•·
'·
. .
.
' .
•
···'I'
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.
'
,
·,, \l
.
~
·,•
R.P.
Appeai allowed.
, '
l
.
.r
'
~ •
I
·'
. '
,,, .
,,
·;
,_
'
J
,.
A
~ •• 1
-~
"
. . .
·-
.
--
" ' ' '
Lex