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

PETITIONER: SUSHIL KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTI RAM & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/08/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   470        1996 SCALE  (6)188

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        J U D M E N T N.P.SINGH.J      When this  appeal was taken up for hearing on August 8, 1996 the following order was passed:           The appellant  is the  son  of      Respondent No.1  born  through  his      first wife,  one Smt.  Chandro.  In      the year  1943 the  mother  of  the      appellant  died.   Respondent  No.1      married Smt. Satan Kaur (Respondent      No.2) in  the year  1946, On  April      12, 1948  the  grandfather  of  the      appellant  purchased  the  disputed      house in the name of the appellant.      However, on May 19, 1949 the grand-      father of  the appellant  sold  the      said   disputed    house   for    a      consideration  of   Rs.2,000/-   in      favour of  the step-mother  of  the      appellant i.e. Respondent No.2. The      suit in  question was filed on July      2, 1974  on behalf of the appellant      for      permanent       injunction      restraining  the  Respondent  Nos.1      and 2  from  interfering  with  the      possession of  the appellant.  That      suit was  dismissed  by  the  Civil      Judge. The  appeal filed  on behalf      o.   the    appellant   was    also      dismissed.  The   High  Court  also      dismissed the  second appeal  filed      on  behalf  of  the  appellant.  It      appears to  be an admitted position      that the  appellant has remained in      possession of the house throughout.      However, learned  counsel appearing

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

    for the  appellant  made  an  offer      that the  appellant was prepared to      give half  portion of  the house to      Respondent   No.2   and   is   also      prepared to  deliver possession  of      that  portion   in  order  to  have      peaceful  settlement.   Mr.  Sodhi,      learned counsel  appearing for  the      respondents stated  that the matter      be listed on some other day when he      will  inform   in  respect  of  the      attitude of the respondents. If the      settlement is  arrived at,  memo of      settlement should  be filed on that      date."      Mr.  Sodhi,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the respondents on  August 20,  1996 informed  that he could not receive any  instructions from the respondents in respect of the offer made on behalf of the appellant on August 8, 1996. But he  suggested that  the Court  may pass  any appropriate order  taking   all  the   facts  and   circumstances   into consideration  as  well  as  the  interest  of  the  parties concerned. According  to us, the offer made on behalf of the appellant shall  be in  the interest of both the parties. In view of an admitted position that the respondent No.2 is not in possession of the house in question and for one reason or the other  the appellant  has continued in possession of the aid house  throughout,  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of Respondent No.2  also that  she is  given possession  of the half portion  of the  house as  offered  on  behalf  of  the appellant. Accordingly,  we allow the appeal in terms of the offer made  on behalf  of the appellant. The appellant shall remain in  possession of  the half  portion of the house and deliver possession  of the  remaining half  portion  to  the Respondent No.2  within three  months from today. is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.