SUSHIL KUMAR versus MOTI RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 211 · Decided: 26-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUSHIL KUMAR 
A 
v. 
MOTI RAM AND ANR. 
AUGUST 26, 1996 
(N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Anicle 142. 
Interest of parties-Order passed by Court-Houses purchased by 
appellant's grandfather in the name of appellant but later sold to appellant's C 
step-mother-Suit filed by appellant for pemianent injunction restraining his 
father and step-mother from interfering with his possession-Suit, first and 
second appeals dismissed-Appellant in possession of house throughout-Of-
f ered half poltion of house to step-mother-Held : In the circumstances of 
the case, offer made by person shall be in the interest of both palties-Hence, 
order issued accordingly. 
D 
The appellant's grandfather purchased a house in the name of the 
appellant, but later sold the house to the appellant's step-mother. The 
appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining his father and 
step-mother (respondents) from interfering with. the possession of the 
appellant. The suit as well as first and second appeals were dismissed. E 
Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the appellant was 
prepared to give half portion of the house to his step-mother, Respondent 
No. 2, and to deliver possession of that portion in order to have a peaceful p 
settlement. 
On behalf of the respondents it was suggested that the Court could 
pass any appropriate order taking all the facts and circumstances into 
consideration as well as the interest of the parties concerned. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
Held : 1. The offer made on behalf of the appellant shall be in the 
interest of both the parties. In view of the admitted position that the 
respondent No. 2 is not in possession of the house in question and for one 
reason or the other the appellant has continued in possession of the said H 
211 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
· A 
house throughout, it would be in the interest of Respondent No. 2 also that 
she is given possession of the half portion of the house as offered on behalf 
of the appellant. The appellant shall remain in possession of the half 
portion of the house and deliver possession of the remaining half portion 
to the Respondent No. 2. [213-C-D] 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1187 of 
c 
1987. 
"From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.85 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 1894 of 1978. 
D.K. Garg for the Appellants. 
R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
N.P. SINGH, J. When this appeal was taken up for hearing on 
E 
F 
G 
H 
August 8, 1996 the following order was passed : 
"The appellant is the son of Respondent No. 1 born through 
his first wife, one Smt. Chandro. In the year 1943 the mother of 
the appellant died. Respondent No. 1 married Smt. Satwant Kaur 
(Respondent No. 2) in the year 1946. On April 12, 1948 the 
grandfather of the appellant purchased the disputed house in the 
name of the appellant. However, on May 19, 1949 the grand· father 
of the appellant sold the said disputed house for a consideration 
of Rs. 2,000 in favour of the step-mother of the appellant i.e. 
Respondent No. 2. The suit in question was filed on July 2, 1974 
on behalf of the appellant for permanent injunction restraining the 
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of 
the appellant. That suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge. The 
appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was also dismissed. The 
High Court also dismissed the second appeal filed on behalf of the 
appellant. It appears to be an admitted position that the appellant 
has remained in possession of the house throughout. However, 
learned counsel appearing for the appellant made an offer that the 
appellant was prepared to give half portion of the house to 
Respondent No. 2 and is also prepared to deliver possession of 
that portion in order to have peaceful settlement. Mr. Sodhi, 
[ 
SUSHIL KR .. v. MOTI RAM [N.P. SINGH] 
213 
learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the A 
matter be listed on some other day when he will inform in respect 
of the attitude of the respondents. If the settlement is arrived at, 
memo of settlement should be filed on that date." 
Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on August 
20, 1996 informed that he could not receive any instructions from the B 
respondents in respect of the offer made on behalf of the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.