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

PETITIONER: SHYAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KESHO LAL (DEAD) ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/04/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 594 1995 SCALE  (3)544

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:           THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL,1995 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.L.Hansaria Mr.V.J.Francis, Adv. for the appellants                          ORDER The following Order of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION           CIVIL APPEAL NO.1190 OF 1977 SHYAM LAL (DEAD) BY L.Rs. & ORS.              ...APPELLANTS                           VERSUS KESHO LAL (DEAD) & ANR.                       ...RESPONDENTS                          O R D E R      This appeal  arises by  Special Leave from the Judgment of the  High Court  of Allahabad  in Second Appeal No.977/72 dated  April,  2,  1975.  Kesho  Lal,  respondent  No.1,  is represented by  legal representatives  of the appellants. He was allotted  in 1948  a site  by the  Allahabad Improvement Trust in  plot No.184  of G.Toula.  Thereon, a  building was constructed. Kesho  Lal filed  Suit No.69/58 for declaration that he  was  a  sole  owner  of  the  said  house  and  for possession from  the respondents  brother, Shyam Lal and his mother. Ultimately,  in those  proceedings the High Court by judgment and decree dated May 11, 1966 held thus:           "The direction  given by  the trail      court is  open  to  several  objections.      That  direction  is  in  the  nature  of      partition  of  the  house.  Neither  the      plaintiff nor  the defendants applied to      the court  for partition  of the  house.      The line  X Y appears to have been drawn      on the  map  arbitrarily.  The  specific      shares   of   the   parties   were   not      discussed.  It  is  not  stated  in  the      judgment that  division of  the house is

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

    in  proportion  to  the  shares  of  the      parties in  the joint  property. It  has      been found that the house was built from      joint family  fund. Parties have been in      occupation of  different portions of the      house. They  should have  been  left  in      possession  of  those  portion.  If  any      party is  left in  possession  of  those      portion. If  any party  is anxious for a      division of  the house,  that party must      file a  separate suit for partition. For      the present,  the parties should be left      to have  joint possession  of the  house      belonging to  the family.  The direction      in question  should be  struck off  from      the decree.  The appeal partly succeeds,      while the cross objection fails."      Thereafter, Kesho  Lal filed  the suit for partition in the First  Additional Munsiff  Court at Allahabad. The trial court decreed  the suit  and on  appeal in CA No.409/70, the appellate court  allowed the  damages for a sum of Rs.6,00/- but dismissed  the suit regarding recovery of possession and removal of  the material.  The High  Court in  the  impugned judgment held  that the construction at A, B, C, D and E, F, G, H  were made  subsequent to  the judgment rendered by the High Court  in earlier proceedings. Accordingly, granted the decree in  favour of  the plaintiff-respondents.  Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.      Shri  Francis,   learned  counsel   for  the  appellant contended that  the finding  recorded by the High Court that the construction  at A,  B, C,  D and  E, F, G, H places are subsequent to  the judgment  is  not  correct.  It  being  a finding of  fact based  on appreciation  evidence by all the courts,  we   do  not  find  that  it  is  a  case  for  our interference.  The  appeal  is  accordingly  dismissed,  but without costs.      It  is   suggested  by  Shri  Francis  that  since  the appellants are  in possession  necessary adjustments  may be thought out  by the  parties. This  order of  ours does  not preclude such  adjustment as thought desirable by all, which avoid needless litigation.