http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K. JAYADEVAN NAIR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHNA PILLAI(DIED) & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   247        1996 SCALE  (3)480

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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. By order dated July 27, 1992 in C.A. No.  2718/92 this Court remitted the matter to the High Court to  consider whether there was any family arrangement. 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 .      The only  question  raised  by  Mr.  S.Sivasubramaniam, learned senior  counsel for  the appellant is: whether among the members  of the  family, there was the arrangement under which 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 the respondents is that the father had the property at a partition with his brothers and the  property,  therefore,  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. It  would be obvious that the respondents have had some arrangement; otherwise the appellant would not have had the possession of the property and management thereof. Under these circumstances,  we feel  that the interests of justice would be  met by  directing the appellant to retain l/3rd of the property  and surrender  the remaining 2/3rd property to the contesting respondents who are the subsequent purchasers from the  other family  members. The  appellant should  also return 1/3rd  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  in  two months from today.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed and the appellant is directed  to   deliver  possession   of  property   to   the respondents without any further order of Court. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2