K. VENKATA SESHIAH versus KANDURU RAMASUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 19-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K. VENKA TA SESHIAH 
~-
v. 
~ 
KANDURU RAMASUBBAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 1991 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, en AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136 read with Order 23, Rule • 
3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Compromise petition-Genuine and 
lawful-To be acted upon. 
..... 
c 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 54-Sale of certain suit 
~ 
property pendente lite of one of the parties and prior to compromis.e--
Not valid. 
Respondent No. 1 adopted petitioner-appellant, who married two 
y 
wives and through the first wife he had a son, the respondent No. 2 and 
' 
D 
through the second, another son, the respondent No. 3. During the 
pendency of th~ special leave petition the adoptive mother of appellant 
died. Respondent 2 and 3 laid claim to the entire property of respondent 
No. 1 exclusively 'Under two different wills said to be by the respondent 
No. 1 and each contended that the other will was a forged one. On the 
E 
death of the adoptive mother, the appellant laid claim to her entire 
property as heir. While each of the parties had taken such stand, in ~ .... 
litigations a compromise was brought about on 21.8.1987 between the 
appellant and his two sons, the respondents 2 and 3 and the same was 
filed in this Court and in terms of the compromise the appellant, to 
make payment of Rs.1 lakh to each of his two sons in lieu of relinquish-
F 
· ment of their interest. 
When the matter was listed for recording the compromise, the 
~-
respondent No. 2 contended that as he had not been paid Rs.1 lakh as 
stipulated in the compromise, in the meanwhile he had alienated about 
81 acres of the suit properties to the third parties. The alienees had been 
G 
also impleaded as parties under the orders of this Court. 
Disposing of the petition, this Court, 
HELD: J. Once the Court was satisfied that there was a com-
'-( 
promise it was for the Court to record the same and no option lay before 
H the Court to act otherwise. [542A-B] 
538 
K.V. SESHIAH v. K. RAMASUBBAMMA 
539 
~ 
2. As the compromise petition in the instant case is genuine and 
lawful the same has to be acted upon. [542B] 
A 
3. It is directed that the compromise petition shall be accepted 
and in terms thereof the suit shall be disposed of and the terms of the 
compromise shall form part of the order to be drawn up in this Court 
for disposing of the special leave petition. [542B-C] 
}-'-
4. With a view to settling all equities between the parties, direc-
ted that the appellan~ to. pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh more to respon-
dent No. 2 within eight weeks. Rs.77,124 being the amount paid by the 
... ~ alienees before the Sub-Registrar in respect of the sale-deeds shall be 
-
deposited. [542C-E] 
5. The alienees have no right created under the alleged sale-deeds. 
-y Their possession is without authority of law and clarified that none of 
the sale-deeds is valid. [542F-H] 
B 
c 
6. The alienees shall deliver vacant possession of the property by 
D 
30th of April, 1991, and in the event of failure to do so the Trial Court 
directed to deliver vacant possession. [543A-B] 
Bhoja Govinda Maikap & Anr. v. Janaki Dei & Ors., AIR (1980) 
A 
Orissa 108, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petition 
No. 15001of1989. 
AND 
I.A. No. 1of1989 in S.L.P. No. 12288of1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.1984 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 472 of 1976. 
K. Mahadeva Reddy, Ms. Manjula Gupta, T.V. S.N. Chari and 
E 
F 
A. Subba Rao for the Petitioner. 
O 
Y 
K. Ram Kumar, S.A. Ahmed, Tanweer Abdul and Mohan 
Pandey for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: · 
H 
A 
B 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 1 S.C.R. 
The special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is 
directed against the affirming judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in a suit for title and injunction. 
In view of the fact that a petition of compromise in respect of the 
entire subject-matter of litigation has been filed in this Court it is 
unnecessary to refer to the facts leading to the litigation. We shall, 
therefore, confine the discussion to matters pertinent to the 
compromise. 
Subbamma adopted one K.V. Seshiah. Seshiah married two 
wives. Through the first wife he had a son born to him by name 
~-
C Sudarshan Gupta and through the second another son by name Anand 
Babu. In February, 1985, during the pendency of the special leave 
petition the adoptive-mother died. Sudarshan and Anand Babu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.