T.N. RAJASEKAR versus N. KASIVISWANATHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 884 · Decided: 28-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
T.N. RAJASEKAR 
v. 
N. KASIVISWANA THAN AND ORS. 
JULY 28, 2005 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section I I-Distribution of property 
among Class II heirs-Properties valued at Rs. 3 crores-Five heirs-
C Appellant, one of the heirs, filed suit for partition-Fina/ decree passed by 
High Court-House property valued at Rs. 1.5 crores allotted to appellant, 
though his I/5th share amounted to only Rs. 60 lacs~On appeal, held: 
Owelty amount of Rs. 90 lacs has to go to other four heirs (respondents)-
Pursuant to directions of this Court, appellant has already deposited Rs.60 
lacs-He is now directed to pay balance Rs. 30 lacs with interest to 
D respondents whereupon peaceful vacant possession of the said house property 
shall be handed over to appellant. 
Owner of certain properties died unmarried and issueless. Appellant 
and the respondents succeeded to his estate as Class II heirs under the Hindu 
E Succession Act, 1956. Appellant filed civil suit on the original side of High 
Court for a preliminary decree for partition claiming ~/5th share for himself · 
and for other incidental and ancillary reliefs. Single Judge passed preliminary 
decree, directing the resr.wndents to remit a sum of Rs. 37,68,000 into the 
Court and render accounts. Division Bench however directed the respondents 
to deposit only l/Sth share of Rs. 37,68,000 i.e. Rs. 7,53,000. It held that 
F there was no question of rendering accounts from the date Power of Attorney 
was given by the original owner and that the properties of the original owner 
which existed on the date of his death alone should be divided. 
Subsequently, on application of the appellant, the Single Judge passed 
final decree assessing the value of the properties to be Rs. 2,98,79,569. 
G Appellant was allotted suit item No. 6 i.e. a house property valued at Rs. 
l,50,00,000, though his l/Sth share was only Rs. 59,75,914. The owelty 
amount of Rs. 90,24,086 was directed to be adjusted from the land acquisition 
compensation amount due to the appellant. Division Bench set aside the 
direction for adjustment of owelty from the land acquisition compensation 
H 
884 
T.N. RAJASEKAR v, N. KASIVISWANATHAN [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 
885 
amount, but in other respects confirmed the decree of the Single Judge. Hence A 
the present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench of High Court elaborately considered the 
-valuation arrived at by the Advocate Commissioner and the valuation-of Item B 
No. 6 suggested by the appellant and the respondent and the decisions arrived 
at by the Single Judge and ultimately held that there is no infirmity in the 
determination and value of Item No. 6 as made by the Single Judge. There is 
• no infirmity in the judgment passed by the _Division Bench. It is confirmed 
subject to directions as below mentioned. [889-C] 
c 
2. The Single Judge passed the final decree assessing the value of the 
properties at Rs.2,98,79,569 and towards the share of the appellant he was 
allotted Item No.6 the house property, the value of which was assessed at 
Rs.1,50,00,000. But the appellant's 1/5th share comes to Rs.59,75,914. The 
balance sum of Rs.90,24,086 has to come to the other four legal D 
representatives. Appellant, pursuant to the directions of this Court, has 
deposited Rs.60,00,000 in this Court. Deducting the sum of Rs.60,00,000, 
the appellant is now directed to pay the balance ofRs.30,24,086 with interest 
to the respondents as owelty amount as has been directed in the lower Court's 
order. On deposit of Rs.30,24,086, the respondents shall hand over the peaceful 
vacant possession of the suit Item No. 6 to the appellant. [889-D, E, F, G) 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4561-4564 of 
2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.2003 of the Madras High Court F 
in O.S.A. Nos. 23, 24/2003 and Cross Objections Nos. 4 and 5 of 2003. 
WITH 
S.D.N. Vimalanathan, S. Raju, Ms. Anjani Bansal and P. Narasimhan for 
the Appellant. 
A.TM. Sampath and Ms. T.S. Shanthi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The above appeals were preferred by the appellant/plaintiffagainst the 
final judgment dated 11.03.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 23 and 24 of 2003 and Cross Objection Nos. 4 and 5 
of2003. Respondent Nos. 1-3 T.N. Kasiviswan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.