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

PETITIONER: PARBATI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PURNA PATRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Substitution allowed.      This  appeal,   by  special   leave,  arises  from  the reversing judgment  of the  High Court  of Orissa  in Second Appeal No.8/75,  dated 2.8.1978.  The admitted  position  is that in  Suit No.29/23 of 1937 in the Court of Small Causes, execution was  laid in  M.S. No.217/37.  1/4th share  of the property bearing  Touzi Nos.2498 and 2503/354 was brought to sale on  16.2.1938,  One  Babu  Suryanarayan,  a  practicing advocate of that court, had become the auction purchaser. He had the possession of the 1/4th specified share therein from the court.  Subsequently, h sold the self-same property by a registered sale  deed in  1940 to one Hemamali Devi daughter of another  practicing advocate.  Hemamali Devi in turn sold the property  to the  appellant in 1950 under Ex.2(A), dated 14.10.1950. On  the basis  thereof , the appellant filed the suit for  partition.  The  respondents  hand  purchased  the property and  other properties  from the  judgment-debtor in the  suit.   They  disclaimed  the  purchase  made  by  Babu Suryanarayan and  his sale  in favour  of Hemamali  Devi and further sale  in favour  of the appellant. thus it is a case of total  denial of  the title  of the  appellant. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate Court confirmed the same for partition of 1/4th share and delivery of possession by metes and bound by passing a final degree. The High Court reversed the said decree primarily on two grounds, viz. that there is  no proof  of possession  of the property delivered under the  court sale, and that the appellant has not proved what extent  of the  land they  had purchased.  Under  these circumstances,  the  appellant  cannot  seek  possession  by partition of  the land . The view taken by the high Court is clearly illegal. It is seen that the Sale Certificate issued by the  court clearly indicates the particulars of the lands mentioned as under;      "1. Touzi  No.2498 -  Thana No.214,      Mouza -  Baharabishabar in District      Cuttack,  P.S.,   Thana  and   Sub-      registrar   Cuttack    Sadar,   Ph.      Bakhrabad in  Khata No.431 - Area -      Ac.0.19 -  rent -  Rs.0.12.6.  From

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

    this  four   annas  share   of  the      defendant -  debtor is  Ac.0.04  -7      Kadis rent Rs.0.3. 2-1/2. This land      is auctioned at a sum of Rs.4/-      Schedule      Khasada No.1609 .... Ac.9.19.      Rs.9.4.0   annas   share   of   the      defendant  debtor   Ac.0.04   Kadis      0.07.      2. Touzi No.2502/354 - Thana No.214      in District Cuttack, P.S. and Thana      and subregistrar  Cuttack Sadar Ph.      Bakhrabad,  Mouza   Baharabisnabar,      Khata No.894  - Area Ac.0. 170 Dec.      -  rebd  Rs.0.9.3.  From  this  the      share of  the defendant-debtor  and      his   brother    is   eight   annas      (Rs.0.3.0) Area  Ac.0.84 Dec.  10 -      Kadis -  rent -  Rs.0.4.7-1/2 which      is auctioned at a price of Rs.20/-.      Description      From the  Tafsil No.  811  Ac.0.170      Dec. the  4  annas  share  of  this      defendant-debtor is  Ac.0.42 dec. 5      Kadis."      The same was sold with description of boundaries in the sale made  in favour  of Hemamali  Devi and  also    in  the subsequent sale  to the appellant under Ex.2 (A). Thus it is clear that  Babu Suryanarayan  had purchased the 1/4th share in the  above described  property. Thereby  he became  a co- owner with  other  3/4th  shareholders  whose  property  was purchased by the respondents. The High Court also is clearly in error  in holding  that there  is no proof of possession. Since the  appellant had  sought summoning of the warrant of delivery of  possession, which  was not available, the court register was  summoned which  contained an  entry  regarding delivery of  the possession. No doubt the description of the property  delivered   was  not  mentioned  in  the  delivery warrant. When  the entry maintained in the court register of delivery of  possession is  read with  the sale  certificate issued by  the court,  it is obvious that what was delivered to  Babu   Suryanarayan,  a  practicing  advocate,  was  the property mentioned in the sale certificate. The property was leased out  and rent was realised. Thereby he became the co- owner.  The  appellant  being  successor-in-interest  having purchased the  self-same property, had become co-owner along with the  respondents. Thereby  the suit  for partition  was rightly decreed by the courts below.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and decree of  the High  Court stands  set aside and that of the trial court  as  confirmed  by  the  appellate  Court  stand confirmed. It  is open  to the  parties to  proceed with the execution of the decree in filing an application for passing a final  decree and  take further steps according to law. No costs.