VINODAN versus VISHWANATHAN

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 100 
A 
VINO DAN 
... 
v. 
VISHWANATHAN 
Civil Appeal No. 881 of 2001 
B 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Suit - For partition of building - Constructed on the. part 
of plot jointly owned by parties - Trial court directing equal 
~ 
c 
partition - High Court holding that plaintiff not entitled to parti-
tion and could claim only the amount spent on construction -
On appeal, defendant agreeing to pay Rs. 5,50,0001- in lieu of 
plaintiff's share - Held: Direction for payment of the amount 
as agreed by defendant to the plaintiff for balancing equities 
D 
and keeping happiness and peace between the litigating broth-
ers. 
The present appeal relates to a dispute between two 
brothers regarding partition of a building constructed on 
a part of plot of which they were joint owners. Claim of 
E respondent was that he had spent the entire cost of con-
struction, while the appellant contended that he had 
equally contributed for the construction. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The parties have been .litigating for more than 
20 years and because of the bitter and long litigation, it 
may not be conducive for the parties to stay in the same 
building, particularly when they have option of residing 
separately because of the available land with each one of 
G them. The respondent gave an offer that he is willing to 
' 
pay Rs.5,50,0001- in lieu of the share of the appellant. In 
., 
the facts and circumstances of the case, while balancing 
the equities and for keeping peace and happiness in the 
H 
100 
VINODAN V. VISHWANATHAN 
101 
family, it would be just and proper to direct the respon-
A 
dent to pay Rs.5,50,000/- to the appellant. On receiving 
the said amount, the appellant may construct a suitable 
house in his portion of the land and for that purpose one 
year's time from the date of payment of Rs.5,50,000/- is 
granted to the appellant to vacate the portion of the build-
B 
ing which is presently in his possession and give yacant 
and peaceful possession of his portion of building to the 
respondent in lieu of payment of Rs.5,50,000/-. [Paras 11 
and 12] [104-D, E, F, G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.881 
C 
of 2001 
c.. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 21.05.1998 of the 
High Court of Ke.rala at Ernakulam in A.S. No. 254of1990 
._. 
Subramonium Prasad for the Appellant. 
A. R~ghunath for the Respondent. 
... :,.~'', 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
·.-. 
DALVEER BHANDAR1, J. 
1. This appeal is directedagainst the judgment dated 21st 
May, 1. 998 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in 
A.S. No.254 of 1990. 
2. This is an unfortunate litigation regarding partition of a 
building constructed on a small piece of land between the broth-
ers. It is not disputed that the land is jointly owned by both the 
brothers. The dispute is restricted over the building which has 
been constructed on the part of the land. The matter has trav-
eiled from the Subordinate Court, Trichur to this Court. 
3. A serious endeavour has been made by this Court to . 
amicably settle the matter. On 6.8.2008, the following order was 
passed by this Court" 
D 
E 
F -
G 
"In the present case, the dispute is between two brothers. 
H 
SUPREME COURT R~PORTS 
·< 
~ 
102 
[2Q09] 2 S.C.R. 
l--
A 
The ownership of the lanq is admittedly joint. The short 
controversy is regarding the cost of construction over that 
plot The case of the respondent is . .that h-e has spent the 
\> 
entire cost of construction whereas _the case of the 
appellant is that he has also contributed equally to the 
B 
cost of construction. 
In our considered view, this controversy can be easily 
sorted out by the parties. We have requested the learned 
counsel for. the parties to ensure that the matter may be 
c 
amicably settled between the parties and for that purpose,-
of: 
we adjourn this matter for four weeks." 
The dispu.te could not be re.solved despite efforts of this 
court and now we have been called upon to give our judgment 
in the matter. 
D 
4. Vinodan and Vishwanathan in the suit were the plaintiff 
and defendant before the trial court. The suit was filed before 
·the trial court with the prayer that the property described in the 
r- r
plaint schedule was purchased jointly by the parties as per the 
E -document no. 806/77 and the appellant before this court Vinodan 
;-
is.entitled to the half share of the property. The trial court framed 
~
t,he following issu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.